Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/05/2004 12:56:23 AM: > On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > dion 2004/05/11 07:41:49 > > > > - <name>Maven Castor Plug-in</name> > > + <name>Castor</name> > > The <name/> is the full human readable name, why are you removing > "Maven" and "plugin". Just having "Castor" in there certainly doesn't > make it clear what it is to a human that it is the Castor plugin for > maven. I assume you're doing some swizzling elsewhere to put the words > back in but the POM itself should fully convey what it is in the <name/> > element. If that element were to be used by some third party, say for > indexing purposes the <name/> element as you have made them would be > entirely misleading. The maven AspectJ plugin is not AspectJ and so > forth. Does that not make sense?
We discussed this via Jira a couple of days ago. See MAVEN-1274. Brett was ok with this happening, as was Arnaud. The name is the project name, and the groupId gives away something about the team who are producing the project as well as things like the description. Humans are far more likely to read descriptions than simply names. In the context of the maven-plugins project, "Castor" makes sense. To go to the opposite extreme with your suggestion about third parties using the name alone, should "Apache Maven Castor Jelly Plugin" be used to clearly define it? I'll stop any further changes to the name elements. Please update the issue with your comments and veto/suggestion. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
