One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled. On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo <sa...@sun.com> wrote: > Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls the > domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I would > expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix subprojects. > > Thanks, > Sahoo > > [1] http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > 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
