Hi Dave, I don't have preference for anything wrt the naming so I'm +0 for the change if it suits you. We'll see how it goes once the conversion's done. At the moment I think we should rather focus on achieving the final result (and to be honest the change doesn't buy us much) but don't want to hinder introducing it only because I haven't completely grasped it yet.
Jacek On 6/5/06, 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 :-). 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. 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. Comments? thanks david jencks
-- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
