Hi Peter,
thank you for voicing your opinions, I value your input
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:05 PM Peter Palaga <ppal...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I do not follow how having org.apache.camel.spring.boot "allows" for
> having org.apache.camel.spring.boot{n} in the future. You can add
> org.apache.camel.spring.boot{n} at any point in time with or without
> having org.apache.camel.spring.boot. Are there any other implicit
> benefits I do not see?
I think its the same argument you're trying to make, making it easier
on the users, for instance migrating from
`org.apache.camel.spring.boot` to a future
`org.apache.camel.spring.boot3` would be a bit easier to do but I
would argue also easier to discover and grasp. I think having a plan
that makes this transition easier is a good thing.
At some point we'll need to discuss how we're going to address Java
modules and I think, even though it's early days, the issue of having
`org.apache.camel` as the sole group ID will need to be addressed.
It seems that your whole argument can be summarized by the following:
> Different groupId is a strong indicator of independent release cycle.
I don't find it universally true, contributors need to discover much
more than the link between a group ID/version and git repository, and
I think users generally don't perceive this as an issue as they are
guided by documentation and examples. The argument is about perception
which would make it by definition subjective.
Your opinion does matter and I think I've tried to understand the
motivation and the potential drawbacks/benefits from keeping the same
group ID based on that, but I remain convinced that having a different
group ID would be a better way.
I don't think we can find an objective measurement to determine what
would be the best thing to do, so I have to stay by my opinion.
If there are no other issues anyone want's to bring on this topic, I
will proceed with this in a few days, let's leave some time for folk
to think about this and voice their concerns,
Thank you :)
zoran
--
Zoran Regvart
