+1 I fully second this analysis. On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 20:10, Guo Du <mrdu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> > wrote: > > At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual > > overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself > since I > > don't really see any added value. > I believe all gogo java code belong to sub package of > org.apache.felix.gogo. groupId play the same way as java package name. > It's important to group similar function/class/module together. The > group/package name should tell you where it come from/for without to > see more details from artifact/class name. > > Event 100+ file in the same folder is not a problem for maven, but not > pleasant for human to navigate/maintain :( > > -Guo > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
