I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything... but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's right now.
Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase and at that time I think we may want to introduce one or two additional groupId's to keep the repo organized. I think it is premature to be talking about changing groupId's right now. --jason On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Jencks 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? I think that we should keep everything org.apache.geronimo. Having a byzantine group id hierarchy will only confuse those poor souls that want to use our artifacts. Regards, Alan
