On 2016-12-28 11:49, Guillaume Laforge wrote: > Hi Marcin, > > Some modules have used the groovyx.* namespace in the past. > It's somewhat semi-standard, in the sense that it's already in use, at > least. > It's not dependent upon Apache or the defunct Codehaus foundation, and > there's no constraint from Sonatype on those. > If using groovyx, it'd be good to continue using some kind of consensual > sub-namespace, like groovyx.net.* for network related modules.
Thanks Guillaume for your answer. It seems rationally. Marcin > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Marcin Zajączkowski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Recently I've been taking to Christopher J. Stehno - the author of >> http-builder-ng [2] to push the artifacts also to Maven Central. The >> problem seems to be the groupId - org.codehaus.groovy.modules. Codehaus >> is defunct together with the forge allowing to sync artifacts with Maven >> Central. I wanted to talk to Sonatype guys about that, however, writing >> the email I realized this issue is more generic and it would be good to >> have an consistent position of Groovy developers in that case. >> >> [1] - https://github.com/http-builder-ng/http-builder-ng >> >> The main question that came to mind is: should external Groovy modules >> use the same groupId than internal (bundled) ones? >> >> Maven Central guys are in general quite restrictive in a topic of group >> id. Every module author would need to have access to the whole >> org.codehaus.groovy.modules namespace and publish artifacts there. It >> could be potentially dangerous assuming broken artifact configuration. >> Not to mention that org.codehaus can disappear one day. >> >> Maybe it would be better (easier to proceed with Soantype's guys) to >> request a separate subgroup for xxx.groovy.modules.external, >> xxx.groovy.modules.ext or xxx.groovy.extmodules with permissions set >> only for that level or even in more restricted way, e.g. >> xxx.groovy.modules.external.httpbuilderng? >> >> >> Another related question is about "xxx". When/if migrated to >> org.apache.* namespace one day it could be not possible to freely >> publish artifacts to org.apache.groovy.modules.ext by external >> developers. Maybe there should be another namespace for external >> modules? Or maybe they should be kept in their own namespaces? >> >> WDYT? >> >> Marcin >> >> P.S. I don't propose a revolution. I would like to have http-builder-ng >> in Maven Central and with org.codehaus.groovy.modules is seems to be >> problematic right now. >> >> -- >> http://blog.solidsoft.info/ - Working code is not enough >> > > > -- http://blog.solidsoft.info/ - Working code is not enough
