Hey JB, basically +1, but
a) another rename? :) b) we had soemthing like this already but decided to use assemblies instead of plain features because all "real" Karaf features are there already. But big +1 for Davids idea to add relocated information here. I've found an introduction here [1], but I'm not sure how to do it since only the features.xml has been moved and not the entire package... Kind regards, Andreas [1] http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-relocation.html On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > > my proposal was more to use: > > mvn:org.apache.karaf.features/standard/2.2.0/xml/features > mvn:org.apache.karaf.features/enterprise/2.2.0/xml/features > > more than > > mvn:org.apache.karaf.assemblies.features/standard/2.2.0/xml/features > mvn:org.apache.karaf.assemblies.features/enterprise/2.2.0/xml/features > > I think it's more "logical". > The groupId containing assemblies is more for our usage but I don't think > it's a "good" groupId for the users. > > WDYT ? > > Regards > JB > > > On 03/05/2011 08:16 AM, David Jencks wrote: >> >> I seem to recall that for real artifacts maven supports some kind of "your >> artifact is now located here...." file for obsolete locations. Is there any >> chance the mvn url handler supports something like that and we can just >> point from the old location to the new one? >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:05 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On Karaf "previous" versions, such as Karaf 2.1.3 or 2.1.4, the features >>> descriptor was in mvn:org.apache.karaf/apache-karaf/2.1.4/xml/features >>> >>> Now, starting with 2.2.0 version, with the assemblies refactoring, the >>> features are in >>> mvn:org.apache.karaf.assemblies.features/standard/2.2.0/xml/features. >>> >>> I think it could be confusing for the users. >>> >>> What do you think to use >>> mvn:org.apache.karaf/apache-karaf/2.2.1/xml/standard-features, >>> mvn:org.apache.karaf/apache-karaf/2.2.1/xml/enterprise-features ? >>> >>> I don't want to change the maven modules structure (having >>> assemblies/features is clearer for the developers), but I take my user cap >>> and I think it could make sense to be as closest as possible of the previous >>> features descriptor locations. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Regards >>> JB >> >
