On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:03, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix, >> so it's better categorized. >> >> > > I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long > names, e.g.: > > org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar > > So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files all > of the form: > > org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar > > I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its > repo...seems like an implementation detail to me. > > Agreed, as is the groupId really. There are a lot of subprojects in the ASF that don't even start with their TLP ;-) I think it's just makes things more difficult for users. I'm not sure we have anybody out there that downloads all the iPojo jars one by one, so trying to make those first class citizens does not make sense to me (i'm referring to the main download page). I have actaully done the same for gogo, even if i also think it's useless (just to be consistent and not start such discussions). Adding the 20+ jars from Karaf would not make sense either imho. Subprojects that are composed of multiple bundles are not necesseraly meant to be consumer by picking the bundles one by one. That would anyway still be possible because all the bundles are available from maven, and users that start doing such things are well aware of that usually. So really, I think subprojects should have more of their own identity. The fact that they belong to a given TLP is mostly irrelevant for the end-user. > -> richard > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is: >>> >>> org.apache.felix.gogo >>> >>> While most other subprojects are: >>> >>> org.apache.felix >>> >>> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the >>> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't >>> seem >>> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has >>> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix. >>> >>> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make >>> it >>> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a >>> given >>> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent >>> if >>> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of >>> having separate groupIds? >>> >>> -> richard >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
