Should the configs that are specific to these artifacts also be renamed?
For example we have org.apache.geronimo.configs/webconsole-jetty6 but
org.apache.geronimo.configs/webconsole-tomcat and the same for dojo.
I'm asking because I was just about to update the welcome-jetty to
welcome-jetty6 and include it in the jee5 assembly.
Joe
Paul McMahan wrote:
FYI -- the following artifactIds are now renamed to use "tomcat6".
org.apache.geronimo.configs/tomcat6
org.apache.geronimo.configs/tomcat6-deployer
org.apache.geronimo.modules/geronimo-tomcat6
org.apache.geronimo.modules/geronimo-tomcat6-builder
org.apache.geronimo.assemblies/geronimo-tomcat6-jee5
org.apache.geronimo.assemblies/geronimo-tomcat6-minimal
Best wishes,
Paul
On 12/6/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure who I've talked to about this or where but I think
really really strongly that we should include the major version
number of the projects we integrate in our artifactIds relating to
those external projects.
A couple people have pointed out that something like jetty_6 or
geronimo-jetty6-builder is more consistent with our spec naming than
jetty6 or geronimo-jetty6-naming.
I don't really care about that, although I think the shorter tomcat6
is perfectly clear and easier to type.
Other stuff:
axis >> axis1
cxf >> cxf1
openjpa >> openjpa1
I think this will really reduce confusion about what is running in a
server.
So, I'd like the tomcat modules to be renamed geronimo-tomcat6,
geronimo-tomcat6-builder, tomcat6, tomcat6-deployer.
Can we discuss and settle this soon?
thanks
david jencks
ps. I'm planning to remove the jetty[5] stuff from trunk soon.
