> From: Ersin Er [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > Which form is better up to you? > > 1) > <groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId> > <artifactId>core</artifactId> > > or > > 2) > <groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId> > <artifactId>org.apache.directory.mina</artifactId> > > or > > 3) > <groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId> > <artifactId>mina-core</artifactId> >
This is the only one that makes sense in my opinion. It is short and informative enough. > > And another point: if we choose, for example the 3rd option, consider > integration and filter subprojects: > > Which one do you prefer? > > 3.1) > <groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId> > 3.1.1) <artifactId>mina-netty-codec-filter</artifactId> > or > 3.1.2) <artifactId>mina-filter-codec-netty</artifactId> > > or > > 3.2) > <groupId>org.apache.directory.mina.filter.codec</groupId> > <artifactId>mina-netty-codec-filter</artifactId> > > or > > 3.3) > <groupId>org.apache.directory.mina.filter.codec</groupId> > <artifactId>netty</artifactId> (which mimics 3.1.2 which is strict > package-class like scheme) > None of them sound right. I do not think you need to say that is a codec-filter, you just need to say it is a bridge between mina and netty. The details of the implementation do not need to be transparent on the name of the artefact. So something like: <artifactId>mina-netty</artifactId> Should be good enough. Jose Alberto
