As expressed in this mail, time has come to consider this issue
again. With current groupIds 'target' directory can not be deleted on
windows during the build. It has deeply nested files with long names, a
very familiar issue by now..(see the error message posted below). Here
is an [RTC]
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
Coming
Hi Dave,
I don't have preference for anything wrt the naming so I'm +0 for the
change if it suits you. We'll see how it goes once the conversion's
done. At the moment I think we should rather focus on achieving the
final result (and to be honest the change doesn't buy us much) but
don't want to
I guess the other consideration is for people outside our project that want to pick up piece parts
(like the Tx manager). Please remember that not all OSes will be able to tolerate super long file
names and these will go into the repo. I know there is some head room but were stealing it from
Here's the discussion on why we had to change the groupIds
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg19426.html
And here's the JIRA that restructured the POMs and gave those groupIds.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1755
I hope I understood what David is saying
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
right now.
Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
and at that time I think we may want to introduce one or two
additional groupId's
Jason Dillon wrote:
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
Can you supply a concrete use case?
but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
right now.
Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
and at that time I
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
Can you supply a concrete use case?
Sure, I believe that we will eventually get G split up into a few
smaller chunks.
Probably, one tree of modules, that represents the very core of G,
none of the J2EE bits at all. Then
We already use a separate groupId for specs. (o.a.g.specs). We have to
decide between having some 5 top level groupIds under o.a.g versus
having all artifacts for modules, configs, specs, samples, under the
same groupId. I am beginning to think, seeing the latter in the repo
is more confusing.
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
--jason
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package name
for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any opinion.
For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
-dain
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
I like
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package
name for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any
opinion. For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
Can you be more specific? What do you want the
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:41 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package
name for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any
opinion. For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
Can
Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent
renaming, the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
More important, I think at
inline..
--- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent
renaming, the configs should if
16 matches
Mail list logo
