Sean Schofield schrieb:
We're talking about the result (longer directory names) which I think
everyone can have an opinion on regardless of their Maven knowledge.
So far nobody has presented a maven *requirement* that we use longer
names. Wendy has pointed out several times now about how the artifact
names and directories do not have to match.
Your only question was do you prefer a short name. If you ask me I would
agree. But this is not the core question but some of the consequences.
Since maven doesn't require it, I prefer to keep the names the way
they were before we went down the maven road. We made other changes
to our svn to accomodate maven b/c they were not as disagreeable and
because using the maven directory layout makes the pom's much cleaner.
For me it is the best outcome.
Ok.
But I hope you get some more maven background now and you change your mind.
And please look at the structure of the maven project, maybe you
understand me then.
I've looked at the maven project. I find it confusing. Here's what I
would expect to see:
maven
maven/core
maven/continuum
maven/plugins
maven/plugins/foo
maven/plugins/bar
... etc.
From my experience the struture of maven make sense
Something like that. But that's not how they chose to organize it.
Its their project so they can organize it how they want.
All of adf would be tomahawk? I don't expect it. Some of the parts can
be merge with tomahawk. I think this must be technical decision and not
only discuss internal in the PMC.
I agree. Ted Husted and I made this point several times on the PMC
mailing list during the early days of the discussion. Oracle wanted
to keep things confidential until they had internal approval. I was
against any serious discussion that did not take place in public.
Ok, we will wait.
For the record, very little was decided and very little was discussed
on the PMC list. Pretty much everything was deferred until Oracle
decided to make the source publicly available.
One issue that I raised was that the ADF stuff should make as much use
of myfaces-commons as possible (including moving tomahawk and the impl
to the ADF way when it made sense.) A bunch of PMC members said "Yes.
I agree" to that sentiment. The other issue that I raised was that
we should try to consolidate the number of components when there was
overlap and that the components should all live in tomahawk. Again, I
received a lot of +1's for that statement.
This is the renderkit part of adf. But what about the other stuff?
So even though nothing has been decided I have a pretty good idea of
how myself and other PMC members will vote when it comes down to it.
As for the private PMC discussions, I agree with you. This should
have been 100% on the dev list but since not everyone wanted to do
this, I deferred to the others.
Do you expect a 1.2 api from myfaces?
You mean a jsf 1.2 implementation? Yes. Will it be its own
subproject? No. That's my personal opinion based on what I know now.
The api is already pretty stable now. So we would probably create a
branch for the 1.1 implementation once we started work on 1.2.
Is was only an example.
What is your problem with tobago-core?
What is your problem with tobago/core? We seem to be going in circles here ...
Yes :-)
Sorry, I'm talking about their source repository. They don't have a
different way they implements the maven way.
I looked at it. I prefer the shorter names. Again, there is only so
many ways to say the same thing.
Why not a different group id for all of the subprojects?
org.apache.myfaces.core
org.apache.myfaces.commons
org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk
org.apache.myfaces.sandbox
Why not, but I would prefer org.apache.myfaces for core
If sandbox depends on tomahawk it should be org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk
I'm not against org.apache.myfaces for core but it seems weird for
org.apache.myfaces to apply to a subproject when the rest would have
their own group ids. What do you think?
I think it is the root of myfaces.
I think myfaces-maven makes perfect sense for things that are 100%
maven related. Master poms, plugins and archtypes are all
maven-related. So I think myfaces-maven is more
appropriate/descriptive then myfaces-project.
myfaces-tomahawk
tomahawk
+1 tomahawk
ok, but which name for the tomahawk master pom?
I was wondering the same thing.
tomahawk-pom?
tomahawk-project you would prefer tomahawk-maven but i don't like it
myfaces-sandbox
tomahawk-sandbox
sandbox
the master pom of sandbox can't be sandbox because the sandbox src pom
has already this artifactId
sandbox-pom for the parent pom. It makes sense doesn't it? Nobody
will see these poms anyways so I don't think the names are too
important. Whatever we call the jar (myfaces-sandbox, sandbox or
tomahawk-sandbox) that artifact id has to be reserved for
sandbox/sandbox.
Ok, sandbox-project
Bernd
