On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:41 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package
name for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any
opinion. For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
Can you be more specific? What do you want the transaction jar
groupId to be? o.a.g or o.a.g.transaction?
Yes, that was confusing. Sorry
o.a.g is cool... I am most concerned about the groupId being the
first part of package name. Said another way, I don't want to see
o.a.g.foo on a jar containing the class o.a.g.bar.Stuff.
-dain
I'm waffling but I guess I agree that shorter is better for the
assemblies, I would prefer o.a.g rather than o.a.g.assemblies
thanks
david jencks
-dain
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
--jason
