> > >
> > > Why type is not sufficient?
> >
> > Adding a type would be a good first step. But a project
> does not have a
> > single deliverable.
> >
>
> Sorry but I don't understand:
> Aren't artifactId and groupId always the same for all deliverables ?
> (please forget about the fact that maven artifact resolving
> mechanism cannot handle this )
It is often desirable (especially in a corporate environment) to group
projects by groupId and deliverables by artifactId.
imagine projectfoo
with sub-projects ...
application - the backend ear application.
ejb-client - jar for ejb-client side usage of resulting ear.
webtier - the web tier war.
common - the set of common non-ejb-client classes
that the clients might find useful
or required.
Example:
projectfoo/jars/projectfoo-ejb-client-4.0.jar
projectfoo/jars/projectfoo-common-4.0.jar
Or for a more tangible example see ...
http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/tomcat/jars/
Assuming a 1 to 1 relationship with groupId and artifactId would
be harmful for many projects. (including mine. ;-)
/* Joakim Erdfelt */
