inline.. --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are > > org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files > org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files > > I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent > renaming, the configs should if anything get the modules name :-). yep > > More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part > > or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either > use > org.apache.geronimo > > or > > org.apache.geronimo.activation > org.apache.geronimo.axis > org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder > ... > org.apache.geronimo.webservices > > for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain > org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. so it will be - o.a.g - all jars o.a.g.plugins - all plugins o.a.g.modules - all cars ? o.a.g.applications - all apps and o.a.g.specs - I also agree we do not need o.a.g.axis etc. However if recommended maven > usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too. > > For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between > org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly > preferring the shorter name. We might have to come back to trim the names once we have the applications cars. I prefer o.a.g.modules (like specs). It will keep the jars and the cars in different directories. Should we remove configurations from the <name> too, e.g. "geronimo configuration for performing service deployments" ? Thanks Anita > > Comments? > > thanks > david jencks > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
