You have to be kidding. $ whois felix.apache.org NOT FOUND
So org.apache.felix is not a valid groupId for you ? The domain is org.apache and it's own by the ASF. Any subdomain is a valid groupId for an ASF published jar. On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 20:59, Sahoo <sa...@sun.com> wrote: > AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if > someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some > artifacts under that groupId? > > Thanks, > Sahoo > > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> 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
