On 17-04-2005 02:56, "Brett Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/> > http://wiki.apache.org/gump/MavenId > > What do you think of using the group ID and artifact ID ideas in gump? > > So: > - a group is a collection of projects, and a project builds one or > more artifacts. > - group probably equates to a repository, currently > - project is a build, but has no ID of its own, just a path relative > to the repository > - artifact equates to the jar id in gump now > - all internal references are by groupID + artifactID
Hmm. One problem I see is that the rest of the world (ie make users, python developers) don't follow that model at all, and would have to make a significant adjustment to start thinking about "groups" and what are the groupings in their software. Secondly, "everything has a unique id". It doesn't necessarily matter if its autogenerated, but its vital to do semantic-web-like stuff. I think what we're looking for is the superset of all the different organisational models that all software developers use for their software builds. Gump has that now, but it leads to inconsistencies. The maven model is a model (a good one), but not a superset of all possibilities. Does that make sense? Cheers, Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
