On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote: > On 5/5/10 22:42, Chris Custine wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > Keep in mind, I wasn't necessarily saying we should change it for Karaf, but > I was trying to say that I don't think we should perpetuate this to other > subprojects and/or expand its usage. So, for example, I'd be inclined to > want to change Gogo to not use this approach.
I think its fine for karaf to do as it is done right now and I agree that we should change gogo to the default approach. regards, Karl >>> 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 you are just weird. ;-) > > -> richard > >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com
