Results:
Leo Simons wrote:
* which of these should be the (maven) artifact id:
[X] excalibur-framework [XXXXXXX] avalon-framework [X] framework
* and which of these:
[X] excalibur-logkit [XXXXXX] avalon-logkit [XX] logkit
I think the result is obvious; IMHO we don't really need to vote.
The basic reason why avalon-XXX is preferred by most is that its deemed less confusing and less work for users.
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.
Now there was more to say on this than I thought. Suggestions so far:
1) groupId == artifactId
2) groupId = 'excalibur'
3) groupid = "excalibur/#{artifactId}"The advantage for (1) is that it results in the least change from the current situation for users. No-one has to update a maven POM besides changing the <version/>, for example. The disadvantage may be that its a little confusing that the tarfile related to avalon-framework-4.4.jar is available from
www.apache.org/dist/excalibur/
and the one related to avalon-framework-4.0.jar is available from
www.apache.org/dist/avalon/
but we could add some blurb in the distribution location that makes this a little clearer.
The advantage for (2) is branding, but it leads to 100s of jars inside a excalibur/jars directory, so I think we should drop it.
The advantage for (3) is branding and avoiding the confusion mentioned above. In general it also scales as a strategy for building artifact repositories, but it is a bit different from what the world is quickly become used to, and it'll require people to update their POMs.
Can we do another round?
[] groupId == artifactId
[] groupId = "excalibur/#{artifactId}"
[] something else, namely:cheers,
- LSD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Excalibur Project -- URL: http://excalibur.apache.org/
