On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.
I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long
names, e.g.:
org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar
So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files
all of the form:
org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar
I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its
repo...seems like an implementation detail to me.
-> richard
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
