I have tools to deploy a bundle to maven and I have a maven repo that is used
from bnd. bnd is 100% bsn based so I need to map between the two. As both are
artifact identifiers I think it is extremely useful if they have a mechanic
mapping.
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
On 6 mei 2010, at 11:34, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:18, Peter Kriens <peter.kri...@aqute.biz> wrote:
>
>> I remember discussions about groupids and artifact ids mostly in relation
>> to the bundle symbolic name (which imho is more important in the end because
>> this is about Felix => OSGI). The problem is that there is no nice mapping
>> between the bsn <-> artifact/groupid. In this ancient discussion we defined
>> a mapping scheme as I recall which ended up with the current scheme.
>>
>> In bnd I have a maven plugin that can work with maven repos but I need to
>> map the bsn to the maven ids to traverse the repository efficiently.
>> Currently I use the org.apache.felix prefix and some others. If every
>> subproject defines their own mapping of bsn <-> artifact/group id then this
>> will all become significantly harder.
>>
>
> Out of curiosity, why are you trying to find the groupId/artifactId out of
> the bsn ? What is it used for ?
> Jars generated by maven usually include a META-INF/maven/ folder which might
> be helpfull too.
>
>
>>
>> Last but not least, consistency has tremendous value because you spot
>> errors more quickly and you minimize the learning curve. And it is easier to
>> automate. I actually do not care what mapping is chosen for the bsn but from
>> an OSGi point of view I think consistency in the Felix project (which sets
>> an example for other projects) has great value.
>>
>> Just my 2cts.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Peter Kriens
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 mei 2010, at 23:44, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/5/10 15:27, Chris Custine 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They would have to control Apache DNS servers! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but
>> the
>>>> fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects)
>> has
>>>> different needs. Many other projects employ a combination of the 2
>>>> approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast
>>>> requirements for maven groupId naming. The Maven developers themselves
>>>> don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation.
>> (
>>>> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/) IMHO that is an
>>>> oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Must we really spend
>>>> time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no
>>>> constructive outcome no matter what the end result is?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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"?
>>>
>>> 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. 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
