Agree, we can add versions when we actually need them. org.apache.camel.spring.boot seems fine.
Thanks, Gregor On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:32 PM Zoran Regvart <zo...@regvart.com> wrote: > > Hi Cameleers, > from what I read, seems like there are no objections in doing this, > I've created an issue[1] and I can work on this for the next > milestone. > > Any thoughts on what the new group ID would be? I was thinking > `org.apache.camel.spring.boot` seems pretty self explanitory. To have > it exactly match what it is. I would not include the version (so not > `org.apache.camel.spring.boot2`), as starters we have might not have > any issues running on future Spring Boot versions, and perhaps adding > versioning would be a decision we can make when we need to. > > zoran > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-13643 > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:08 PM Zoran Regvart <zo...@regvart.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Cameleers, > > we publish Spring Boot starters with the Maven group ID of > > `org.apache.camel`, I think it would be better if we publish them with > > another group ID, something like `org.apache.camel.spring.boot`. > > > > My reasoning is that with time there might be other kinds of starters, > > even within the Spring ecosystem, we might event add some versioning > > information in the group ID, like `org.apache.camel.spring.boot2`, > > this might open the doors for supporting multiple (possibly mutually > > exclusive) versions of Spring Boot. > > > > What do you think? > > > > zoran > > -- > > Zoran Regvart > > > > -- > Zoran Regvart
