I've commented before about the abundance of commons-* directories in the current repository... avalon and excalibur also have quite a few.
The way that I understand it, if a groupId is used, then all of the distributions, jars, licenses, and poms for that group go in the same directory. I'm not sure if this would ever cause any conflicts... if so, perhaps each group member could still have its own directory for these things.
As time goes on, it seems that the repository is going to get larger and larger, and it will become more difficult to manage. Since maven still has control over the the logic for downloading jars from the repo, I don't think that a migration to a more heirarchical structure would be catastropic... maybe the searching mechanism could just be updated.
Any thoughts? Which choice do people prefer?
1. (possible structure)
repo/
jakarta-commons/
commons-beanutils/
commons-lang/
commons-(many more) jakarta-avalon/
avalon-activation/
avalon-apps/
avalon-(many more) jakarta-excalibur/
excalibur-altrmi/
excalibur-cli/
excalibur-(many more)
2. (current structure) repo/ commons-beanutils/ commons-lang/ commons-(many more) avalon-activation/ avalon-apps/ avalon-(many more) excalibur-altrmi/ excalibur-cli/ excalibur-(many more)
3. (another possible structure) repo/ apache.org/ ant/
jakarta/
avalon/
commons/
excalibur/
maven/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
