On 5/5/10 14:10, Guo Du wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual
overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself since I
don't really see any added value.
I believe all gogo java code belong to sub package of
org.apache.felix.gogo. groupId play the same way as java package name.
It's important to group similar function/class/module together. The
group/package name should tell you where it come from/for without to
see more details from artifact/class name.
I am not aware of use cases for just having the groupId, it seems you
always need a groupId and artifactId, which gives you all the
information you need.
I think some of this is related to how we do our artifact naming at
Felix, since I think typical maven naming for a JAR (IIRC) is
artifactId-version.jar and groupId is something separate, but we set
artifactId to "groupId.subproject", which means our JARs names are fully
qualified. So for us, artifactId (or JAR name) is all you need to know.
Event 100+ file in the same folder is not a problem for maven, but not
pleasant for human to navigate/maintain :(
I would think the Maven creators didn't intend users to navigate inside
there in the first place.
-> richard
-Guo
