And maybe, after finding the best names, maybe we could think on releasing them, could we?
Bruno On 6/28/06, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah ok, I was seing the maven-* wherever I went, and I thought it was like the plugins, where everybody puts maven-name-plugin (even not being plugins from the maven project itself). But no problem, I will rechange once we agree in the names. Those seem fine to me :) Bruno On 6/28/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/28/06, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To follow the conventions, I think we should rename the archetypes to: > > > > maven-archetype-myfaces > > maven-archetype-jsfcomponents > > > > Then, update the poms and documentation. I am going to do this if no > > one objects ;) > > I think the 'maven' at the front of the archetype name refers to the > fact that Maven-the-project is distributing them, not that they are > meant for use with Maven-the-build-tool. > > IMO they should by myfaces-archetype-[something]. > > myfaces-archetype-simple > myfaces-archetype-components <--'jsf' is implicit in the 'myfaces' part, no? > > For example, the ones for Struts are struts-archetype-xxx . > > Thoughts? > -- > Wendy >
