Comments inline... On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>wrote: ...
> > I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far > the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has > given cause for concern. > > For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each > subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just > because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when > trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some > understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId > of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own > identity"? > I totally agree with you on being consistent, and I guess I hadn't noticed that we are diverging from the other Felix projects. I think when we moved Karaf over from ServiceMix Kernel we just kept the naming convention we had in place and I'm not sure we thought about it much at the time. I think that alone makes it something we need to consider. > > Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own > groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a > Maven repo. I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a fair amount of time each day browsing maven repositories. I call it Maven spelunking ;-) I guess its just a personal thing, but like Guillaume, I just prefer a more hierarchical organization as opposed to a flat group with dozens or hundreds of artifacts. I can't come up with a good technical argument for either approach, but for the sake of consistency I think we should take a look. > This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store artifacts in the > next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people are conferring > upon it will be lost. > > > -> richard > > Chris >> >> -- >> Chris Custine >> FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com >> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com >> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org >> Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org >> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org >> >> >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo<sa...@sun.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if >>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish >>> some >>> artifacts under that groupId? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sahoo >>> >>> >>> Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly >>>> controlled. >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo<sa...@sun.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls >>>>> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I >>>>> would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix >>>>> subprojects. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Sahoo >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html >>>>> >>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>>>> >>>>> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example: >>>>> org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet<gno...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix, >>>>> so it's better categorized. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
