> So can we find a way to suit both sides? > - keep the tools we have running > and > - move to a unique id
Not having a standard way to reference Eclipse artifacts is a continuing source of pain. It seems to me that the groupId serves quite well as an identifier for the source of an artifact, and it is a nice way to provide a sandbox in the repository in which to play. The artifactId is a nice way for the provider of the artifacts to identify their artifacts. I think that these two goals are still nicely fulfilled when we have something like the following: <groupId>org.eclipse.core</groupId> <artifactId>org.eclipse.core.runtime</artifactId> The artifact comes from the Eclipse Core project, and they happen to have have called it org.eclipse.core.runtime. Within maven we can use both of these pieces of information together in order to ensure a unique match, even though we could probably get away with just using the artifactId. I don't see how it hurts us to use both though. It will be a serious source of confusion to Eclipse plugin developers if we start telling them that in order to include the plugins org.eclipse.ui and org.eclipse.core.runtime in a pom.xml they need to write the following: <dependency> <groupId>org.eclipse</groupId> <artifactId>ui</artifactId> <version>3.3.1</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>org.eclipse.core</groupId> <artifactId>runtime</artifactId> <version>3.3.1</version> </dependency> And giving them artifactIds with dashes instead of periods just seems... spiteful. I mean, we have trouble enough just remembering which plugins we're trying to get, don't make us guess what to call them, or pull out a "Maven Naming Conventions for Eclipse" manual to figure it out. It seems like what we've got with eclipse:make-artifacts works pretty good, if we could all just agree on it. A two-segment id would work fine too, if folks have a preference for that. All that really matters is that we get some consistency. Micah Hainline > i do not think anybody want to change the repository: > > id=groupId+artifactId > > Just that the artifactId may include a part of the groupId > > id=org.eclipse.core.org-eclipse-core-resources > > I know now that that me have the osgi-id problem, but we have also the > grown average use factor to consider. I think we can live with long > names. In this case i see no problem stripping the "org" from the > artifactId so the id is: > > id=org.eclipse.core.eclipse-core-resources > > This way we can survive till the moment where there is only an id left > and no more groupId or artifactId. Relocations can then be used for a > smooth transition. > > So can we find a way to suit both sides? > - keep the tools we have running > and > - move to a unique id > > Ritchie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
