On Monday 01 November 2004 19:42, Leo Simons wrote:
> * which of these should be the (maven) artifact id:
> [ x ] excalibur-framework
To shed the Avalon legacy and hard-feelings in various camps a new name is
preferable.
> [ x ] avalon-framework
By not using avalon-framework, Excalibur will have a slow or even non-existent
migration rate of framework. Personally, I think avalon-framework is a better
artifactId.
> [ x ] excalibur-logkit
> [ x ] avalon-logkit
Same motivation.
> If you have something sensible to say about (maven) group ids (I prefer
> to avoid them and have the group as "prefix" in the artifact name), now
> would be a good time.
AFAIK, Maven groupIds are not optional. On the declaration side the group will
default to artifactId, and on the usage side <Id> element is deprecated and
the <groupId> / <artifactId> should be used.
Being a heavy user of centrally located artifacts, I am in strong favour of
the multi-level (2!) groups, example;
<groupId>excalibur/framework</groupId>
<groupId>excalibur/avalon-framework</groupId>
but that is a lot of personal taste, and no 'bikeshedding' needed... :o)
Niclas
--
+------//-------------------+
/ http://www.bali.ac /
/ http://niclas.hedhman.org /
+------//-------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Excalibur Project -- URL: http://excalibur.apache.org/
