Jason Dillon wrote:
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
Can you supply a concrete use case?
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.
I don't agree. Unless I'm missing something, there's no point in waiting.
Regards,
Alan
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
