Hi all, We currently use artifactIds like package names. For example we have:
<artifactId>org.apache.ldap.server.core</artifactId> (and we have no groupId for this definition, so it's inherited from parent which is org.apache.directory.server.) However I think we should have: <groupId>org.apache.ldap.server</groupId> <artifactId>core</artifactId> This allows a better repository structure which looks like the standard Java library layout where groupIds are like package names and artifactIds are like class names. Another income using this approach is that it allows finer site generation. m2 uses artifactIds for generating subproject directories. This was we do not overside site deploy urls for all subprojects. The only problem with this approach is the name of the distribution jar files. With the approach I propose we get: asn1-<version>.jar in org/apache/directory/asn1/<version> instead of: org.apache.directory.asn1-<version>.jar or org.apache.-<version>.jar So it may be best to use shortest explanotory name possible like: directory-asn1 mina-core common-ldap apacheds-plugin or apacheds-maven-plugin (not maven-directory-plugin (which is an internal convention of maven project I think) ?) protocol-kerberos (not apacheds-protocol-kerberos ?) It this is still not explanatory then I offer more. We may keep package name artifactIds which causes other problems. And also maven conventions favor the final approach. As the final note consider that eclipse project generated by maven take the name from artifactIds. (However IMO they should have taken the name field in the pom.) And I still see chance for the first scheme I offered (single level artifactId like core), please also consider that one. WDYT? And I think Brett may have good advices for us while he knows the conventions and incomes best. Cheers, -- Ersin
