On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:18, Peter Kriens <peter.kri...@aqute.biz> wrote:
> I remember discussions about groupids and artifact ids mostly in relation > to the bundle symbolic name (which imho is more important in the end because > this is about Felix => OSGI). The problem is that there is no nice mapping > between the bsn <-> artifact/groupid. In this ancient discussion we defined > a mapping scheme as I recall which ended up with the current scheme. > > In bnd I have a maven plugin that can work with maven repos but I need to > map the bsn to the maven ids to traverse the repository efficiently. > Currently I use the org.apache.felix prefix and some others. If every > subproject defines their own mapping of bsn <-> artifact/group id then this > will all become significantly harder. > Out of curiosity, why are you trying to find the groupId/artifactId out of the bsn ? What is it used for ? Jars generated by maven usually include a META-INF/maven/ folder which might be helpfull too. > > Last but not least, consistency has tremendous value because you spot > errors more quickly and you minimize the learning curve. And it is easier to > automate. I actually do not care what mapping is chosen for the bsn but from > an OSGi point of view I think consistency in the Felix project (which sets > an example for other projects) has great value. > > Just my 2cts. > > Kind regards, > > Peter Kriens > > > > On 5 mei 2010, at 23:44, Richard S. Hall wrote: > > > On 5/5/10 15:27, Chris Custine 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? > >>> > >> > >> They would have to control Apache DNS servers! :-) > >> > >> Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but > the > >> fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects) > has > >> different needs. Many other projects employ a combination of the 2 > >> approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast > >> requirements for maven groupId naming. The Maven developers themselves > >> don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation. > ( > >> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/) IMHO that is an > >> oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page. > >> > >> So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Must we really spend > >> time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no > >> constructive outcome no matter what the end result is? > >> > > > > I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far > the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has > given cause for concern. > > > > For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each > subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just > because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when > trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some > understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId > of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own > identity"? > > > > Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own > groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a > Maven repo. This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store > artifacts in the next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people > are conferring upon it will be lost. > > > > -> richard > >> Chris > >> > >> -- > >> Chris Custine > >> FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com > >> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com > >> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org > >> Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org > >> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, 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
