Usually the maven norm is something like com.mycompany.myproduct:myproduct-some-module.
So I would expect to see groupIds of org.apache.edgent, and artifact id's of edgent-some-module. However, I've noticed that both Eclipse and IBM (obviously not related in any way) seem to use completely different artifact formats. I would recommend being an Apache project you adopt the Apache Maven standard format. John On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:44 AM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I’ll answer this one quickly as I can do that without digging in too deep. > > I wouldn’t add the apache-edgent to the artifact names as the groupId > already qualifies them as apache edgent modules. > However when creating a release zip/tar.gz with the sources or binary > distribution I would add the “apache-edgent-” prefix. > > Chris > > > Am 06.06.17, 23:02 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" <dml.apa...@gmail.com>: > > Currently the generated JAR/WAR lack an “edgent” or “apache-edgent” > prefix, e.g., "api-topology-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar". How important/required is > it to add that before we start publishing these to mvn repos? > > What’s the current ASF best-practice in this regard? e.g., I some > (limited) # of “apache-XYZZY-…” in maven central. Presumably there are > many many others that omit the “apache-" - e.g., “beam-sdks-…” > > — Dale > > > >
