I agree it should use "geronimo", since that is the groupId used for
the bulk of the m1 build.
IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or
expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId.
--jason
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
hopefully be sooner rather than later.
Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the
plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs
around by
hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are
more
people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to
recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra*
hard
to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or
"org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g.,
geronimo-kernel?
I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get
into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become
available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built
jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.
david jencks
Thanks,
Aaron
On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
>> and M2
>> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different.
IIUC, we
>> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
>
> So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
> builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should
support
> Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
> "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID
when they
> update to Geronimo 1.2?
>
> My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with
dependencies on
> Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
> regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
>
> Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a
Maven 1
> repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1
Group
> ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the
"Maven 2
> Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
> Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
