Bernd, I'm ok to compromise and call the poms "project." So tomahawk-project, sandbox-project, etc.
What about the master pom? Do you prefer a separate myfaces-project just for the pom? Or do we keep it myfaces-master? We need to decide quickly because I want to get the nightly builds started. Sean On 1/16/06, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 >
