We already use a separate groupId for specs. (o.a.g.specs). We have to decide between having some 5 top level groupIds under o.a.g versus having all artifacts for modules, configs, specs, samples, under the same groupId. I am beginning to think, seeing the latter in the repo is more confusing.
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs) o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules) o.a.g.plugins o.a.g.assemblies o.a.g.applications o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now) Cheers Prasad On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 >> >> >>
