Hi Zoran,
as far as I can understand, moving the Spring Boot starters to a
separate git repository is not a part of this plan, right?
If so, I tend to think this is not a good idea. Here is why:
1. Having a 1:1:1 relationship between release cycle, groupId and git
repository seems to be the most common practice in the maven world.
Following common practices is an advantage on its own because it saves
time by not requiring to learn any local peculiarities.
Sticking with the practice of having 1:1:1 between release cycle,
groupId and git repository, allows the projects depending on Camel to
check that they manage the right version of our artifacts: if all
artifacts of one groupId (and nothing else) refer to the same
${camel.version} property, all is fine. But once you break the 1:1:1 in
some way, the versions management becomes a hell of nitty-gritty details
that even may change over time.
2. If this is going to lead to a situation in which we'll have the same
artifact id in multiple groupIds (something like
org.apache.camel.spring.boot1:starter-1 and
org.apache.camel.spring.boot2:starter-1) then Eclipse users (including
me) are going to stop liking you. Eclipse requires manual hacks in
situations like that. Having a different artifactId is much more painless.
Thanks,
-- Peter
On 12/06/2019 12:08, Zoran Regvart wrote:
Hi Cameleers,
we publish Spring Boot starters with the Maven group ID of
`org.apache.camel`, I think it would be better if we publish them with
another group ID, something like `org.apache.camel.spring.boot`.
My reasoning is that with time there might be other kinds of starters,
even within the Spring ecosystem, we might event add some versioning
information in the group ID, like `org.apache.camel.spring.boot2`,
this might open the doors for supporting multiple (possibly mutually
exclusive) versions of Spring Boot.
What do you think?
zoran
