/dist/avalon/${groupId}/jars/${artifactId}-${version}.jar
Shouldn't just "excalibur" or "avalon-excalibur" be the groupId and excalibur-*.jar be the artifactId? (in maven terms)
this is one of those IMHO things one can debate for ages :D. There's no firm "this is how to do it" in the infrastructure guidelines, in maven, or elsewhere, and that is intentional.
My reasoning in setting things up like this goes somewhat like:
- I have interpreted the apache distribution guidelines (http://www.apache.org/dev/mirrors.html) to mean that any object that is truly seperately usable is considered a seperate truly seperate distribution, that should have source/ and binaries/ directories. Since excalibur's components are (to a varying degree) usable completely seperately from each other, they should have seperate distribution locations;
- dominant practice atm for jakarta-commons components (the major central component repository available through the repo @ ibiblio) uses common-${blah}, and it makes sense to follow suit for excalibur;
- considering the number of files currently already distributed for a single version of a single component distribution, some directory partitioning is desirable. Otherwise, the amount of files inside a single directory steadily grows to be less than optimal (like when browsing an RPM ftp site for example);
- the current group names map 1-1 to the current gump project names. This probably, potentially, makes it easier to have gump and a repository work together;
- it simply made sense at the time.
Talks on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list shows everyone has different ideas for different organisation of artifact repositories. If I were to write maven, for example, I would probably structure things even more differently. The open directory categorization guidelines also provide a nice overview of the situation. I think there is a book or two out on how to structure LDAP trees.
I have a maven repository set up here inside our intranet that hosts a number of Avalon jars which haven't been officially released yet (like Fortress). In general I've mapped CVS modules to groupID's, meaning that fortress is under the "avalon-excalibur" group.
that sounds like a sensible policy as well :D
Just wondering if all the excalibur components will have their own groups or if they will be artifacts under a single "avalon-excalibur" group.
I think it is a reasonably safe bet things will stay where they are now for some time to come :D
grz!
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
