>  >  Here is why I chose this naming scheme instead of the prevalent one in
> the

> guice module:
> > - I felt the `james-server` prefix which is in most artifact names
> doesn't
> > bring much. There are a few other modules which dropped the prefix in
> > `server/container/guice` , and I prefer the lighter names. I am
> considering
> > also dropping the prefix from the 2 other queue modules in
> > `server/container/guice/queue` if I get positive feedback.
>
> Overall +1 but imo we should be consistent.
>
> Maybe we should rename them all, or rename none.
>

I don't think that's a viable option, at least not in a single PR. It would
entail a modification of almost every single POM files in the project,
that in turn has impacts on almost everything (docker images, build
scripts, documentation, etc which contain various references to artifact
names)

As an experiment, I attempted moving the `server/app` module to
`/server/assemblies/spring-jpa-activemq` because I wanted to separate
modules which produce actual runnable apps away from modules that only
define binding modules
I also renamed the artifact to something a bit closer to what was done for
the guice based apps.
This ended up in an evening of tracking dependencies and references all
over the place and I'm not entirely confident that my end result is
correct, I dropped that effort.

A more feasible approach would be to incrementally rename the modules I
will be touching/needing to build my SMTP only relay and their immediate
siblings.
I thus would submit a sequence of PRs to do so, If I identify easy wins
doing that I´ll include them as well.
If everyone takes a bit of time to similarly rename the modules they are
immediately working on this could converge

I´ll list the modules I intend to rename here in each PR to limit conflicts
with other's work

jean

Reply via email to