See comments/questions below.
-----------------------
(1) Regarding
> --> groupId org.apache.taverna.common.activities
being a misleading hierarchy: If I understand what Stian said, the issue is
that *taverna-language* exists on its own and *taverna-engine* exists on
its own, but there is no separate entity called "taverna-common" --- OK.
Makes sense.
Do we then want to change the repo names to match the groupIds?
Change:
incubator-taverna-common-activities to
incubator-taverna-commonactivities?
and
incubator-taverna-workbench-common-activities to
incubator-taverna-workbench-commonactivities?
-----------------------
(2) On a related note: I'm sure there's a reason, but I'm curious why
taverna-common-activities is not called taverna-engine-common-activities
based on the git source description: "Common activity implementation for
engine (e.g. WSDL, REST, Tool, Interaction)"?
-----------------------
(3) Regarding wanting workbench-product to have a different groupID than
workbench:
+1 for calling it incubator-taverna-workbench-product rather than
workbench-distro. I think that makes it consistent with all of the other
git repo names / groupIds.
Gale
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 2:36 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 13 May 2016 6:15 p.m., "Gale Naylor" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I buried this in my last "Download Pages" reply, but I wanted to make
> sure
> > you all saw it and could comment.
>
> Thanks, it's good to spin out new threads :)
>
> > -----------------------------------
> > Changes to git repo/groupId?
> > ------------------------------------
> > As far as the GIt repo and groupId names for the Command-line Tool are
> > concerned,
> > I agree that keeping "commandline" as one word in the repo, groupId, and
> > artifacts looks cleaner.
>
> +1
>
> > In looking at the repo names and pom.xml files, I wonder if it is
> > reasonable to change the following:
> >
> > incubator-taverna-common-activities
> > --> groupId to org.apache.taverna.common.activities
>
> I would -1 this as misleading hierarchy, as we have no other .common.*.
>
> Perhaps commonactivities? Problem with - is that it can't appear in Java
> package name, however in common activities they all have their own package
> names.
>
> > incubator-taverna-commandline
> > --> name to Apache Taverna Command-line
>
> +1
>
> > incubator-taverna-workbench-common-activities
> > --> groupId to org.apache.workbench.common.activities
> > --> artifact to apache-workbench-common-activity
> >
> > I don't know how difficult it is to manage all the relationships, but it
> > would be nice if these were consistent.
>
> Should match the engine common activities.
>
> > ------------------------------------
> > Question
> > ------------------------------------
> > incubator-taverna-workbench-product has the same groupId as
> > incubator-taverna-workbench. Is this correct?
>
> Probably not, I think our new style has a 1:1 mapping (if not literal)
> between groupId and repository.
>
> This repo is special in that it relies on Workbench and Workbench Common
> Activities, but it is the distribution of the Workbench. So dependency wise
> it has to live outside the Workbench to avoid circular dependencies.
>
> Shall we call it workbench.product in the groupId ? Or distro?
>
