I was thinking about collapsing everything into one artifact. The current code structure is because agimatec-validation contains the core engine/metadata handler, which was shared with pre-JSR303 code that Agimatec had, while the agimatec-jsr303 was the add-on layer to fulfill the spec requirements.
For now, lets rename the artifacts as: agimatec-validation --> bval-core agimatec-jsr303 --> bval-jsr303 We'll use another JIRA to combine everything or BVAL-1 to split things into an impl and api jar..... I'll try to take a look at the test failures tonight or tomorrow, but go ahead with the commit and we'll figure it out from there. Thanks, Donald On 3/27/10 1:14 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi Kevan, > thank you very much for your feedbacks!!! I'm going to commit the code > at this status, I just need to know: if org.apache.bval fits well in > groupId, which artifacts Id do we have to use? Do you have any > suggestion? > Thanks a lot!!! > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 27, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> >>> Hi all mates, >>> I'm going to complete the issue but I need you help for 2 small issues I >>> have: >>> >>> 1) should I move also groupId and artifactId in poms? >> >> Yes, I definitely think so. >> >>> >>> 2) in the jsr-303 module I've 28 failures over 81 tests, I attached on >>> this email the .txt junit reports, is anyone able to explain me why >>> they fail so I can fix them? >> >> Sorry, I really haven't looked at the code at all, yet... IMO, it's >> absolutely fine for you to commit the code in it's current form. At this >> stage, I don't think anyone would object that the code has test failures. >> Plus committing will allow others to help out... No reason for this to be >> solely on your shoulders. >> >> Thanks for doing this! >> >> --kevan >
