Dan, That is true for a repository - but I was referring to jars used in an *application*.
Spring, Hibernate, Apache Commons, Restlet, Jackson, Camel, virtually every multi-artifact framework I use follows this approach. When I am looking at a directory with a hundred Jars trying to hunt down a specific jar from one of those libraries, I really appreciate they did so. Yeah, the example you mentioned takes the idea too far. Cheers, Rafael On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Dan Haywood <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Rafael, > hmm, not sure that's a very good motivation... the identity of a Maven jar > is also the directory, ie the full path under ~/.m2/repository. > > Funnily enough, I was teaching a Maven course last week at a corporation > that shall remain nameless, and the developers there had Maven modules with > a groupId of com.verybigcorp.foo.bar and an artifactId also of > com.verybigcorp.foo.bar. We decided that whoever chose that artifactId > hadn't understood that the identity of the artifact is the combination of > the both (plus version, plus classifier), and had chosen artifactIds based > on its use as the JAR name. > > Dan > ~~~~ > > On 30 November 2012 16:06, Rafael Chaves <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The artifact id ends up by default being the jar name, right? If that is > > true, I'd go with an artifact name with a common prefix across > > all Isis artifacts (i.e. isis-dflt). Two benefits: people using Isis have > > an easy way of identifying the Isis jars among all the other Jars their > > application uses, and easily avoids collisions with other people's jar > > names. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rafael > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Dan Haywood > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > OK, I've tried to pull together various opinions and updated the wiki > > page > > > [1] > > > > > > - yes, to idea of independent, more granular releases > > > - yes, flatten the modules at least as an interim step > > > - also, rename the groupId/artifactId's > > > - break linkage so that separate modules so don't share common > parent > > > (ie are separate artifacts) > > > - perhaps... move the separate modules into their own git repos > > > > > > With respect to groupId/artifactId's, for those components (eg > > objectstore, > > > security) where there are implementations both core and alternate, we > > need > > > to decide between (eg): > > > > > > o.a.isis.core:objectstore-dflt > > > vs > > > o.a.isis.objectstore:dflt > > > > > > The former has the benefit that all the modules that come with core > have > > a > > > common groupId; the latter has the benefit that all implementations, > > > irrespective of whether they are core or not, have the same groupId. > In > > > other words, does groupId represent a packaging, or does it represent > > > common functionality? > > > > > > In the wiki page shows, I've gone with the former. But I'm 50:50 on > this > > > myself. > > > > > > ~~~ > > > Buried on the wiki page are some further questions: whether to retire > the > > > html-viewer, the profilestore-xml, and the monitoring component. My > > > rationale for retiring html-viewer is that the wicket viewer is similar > > but > > > superior; I don't think profilestore-xml makes sense for webapp viewers > > (it > > > might have made sense for dnd viewer in client/server, but we've > already > > > removed remoting) ; and monitoring I think is a vestige of the remoting > > > should also be removed. But we don't necessarily need to come to an > > > agreement on these points (though opinions would be good). > > > > > > Thanks, all > > > Dan > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ISIS/Make+releases+easier+and+more+frequent > > > > > >
