I'd agree with devtools...there could be a variety of others and the
grouping makes sense.
- Matt
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
Yes we could change the project names to distinguish. Since all the
eclipse plugins start with org.eclipse.*, should we avoid using
another organization name in the title?, what about....
org.apache.geronimo.tools.core?
If having both eclipse and apache in the plugin name isn't a problem
then we can go with eclipse.
There's no problems in using eclipse in the namespace as well as apache...
Or another idea would be to change the artifact's groupID to from
"geronimo" to "geronimo-devtools" same as the subproject name so that
they are distinusished in the repo.
yes, we should certainly do that or actually help keep good practice...
org.apache.geronimo.devtools
Sachin
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Sachin Patel wrote:
Rather then throwing everything in the "eclipse-plugin" folder
could we organize the contents down into the following structure?
A .../trunk/modules/eclipse/plugins/ folder that contains the
following projects...
org.apache.geronimo.core
org.apache.geronimo.ui
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model
org.apache.geronimo.runtime.v1
A .../trunk/modules/eclipse/features/ folder that contains the
following projects...
org.apache.geronimo.feature
Then the .../trunk/modules/eclipse/ folder itself would contain
everything else like the top level maven.xml, the "assembly"
project I'm about to submit, a project containing parent POM's, etc...
What do you think?
Do we need to avoid confusion with other Geronimo modules (e.g.
"core")?
Would
org.apache.geronimo.eclipse.feature
org.apache.geronimo.eclipse.core
be less confusing?
--
Jeremy
