On 12.08.11 08:41, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi,
while looking through the Gump setup for JCS I realized the artifactId
inside the POM had been changed to commons-jcs while the groupId still
is org.apache.jcs. Does it make sense to keep the old groupId when
you change the artifactId anyway?
I
On 14 August 2011 10:38, Thomas Vandahl t...@apache.org wrote:
On 12.08.11 08:41, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi,
while looking through the Gump setup for JCS I realized the artifactId
inside the POM had been changed to commons-jcs while the groupId still
is org.apache.jcs. Does it make sense to
If you change stuff around, you need to change the package name(s),
right? Otherwise, you could have collisions on the classpath.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Jörg Schaible
joerg.schai...@scalaris.com wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2011-08-12, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
IMHO unless the main
On 13 August 2011 21:22, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
If you change stuff around, you need to change the package name(s),
right? Otherwise, you could have collisions on the classpath.
Yes, but then everyone using the code will need to edit and recompile.
So best to keep
IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary
incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original
groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs).
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 12/08/2011 08:41, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
Hi,
while looking through the Gump setup for JCS I
On 2011-08-12, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary
incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original
groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs).
I agree with you. But if jcs changes the artifactId (which has happened
in trunk)
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary
incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original
groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs).
+1
otherwise Stefan is right and we can adjust the groupId also.
- Jörg
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2011-08-12, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary
incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original
groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs).
I agree with you. But if jcs changes the artifactId
On 12 August 2011 08:14, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary
incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original
groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs).
+1, otherwise users will be forced to edit and recompile
