btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example: org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix, > so it's better categorized. > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>wrote: > >> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is: >> >> org.apache.felix.gogo >> >> While most other subprojects are: >> >> org.apache.felix >> >> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the >> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't seem >> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has >> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix. >> >> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make it >> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a given >> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent if >> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of >> having separate groupIds? >> >> -> richard >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
