Carlos Sanchez wrote: > As I said before it's easier to add the new bundles using > id=groupId+artifactId than to change the whole repo so artifactId can > be used as id > > You have to consider that the repository is not only for Maven users
My point is that the repository is currently in a state where artifactId
*can* be used as a unique id in _most_ circumstances, and tools have
grown to rely on that (war, assembly plugins etc.), so it's perhaps not
such a good idea to change the repository so that is no longer true.
A somewhat tangential idea just occurred to me: If the desired future
direction _does_ turn out to be that groupId and artifactId be
considered irrelevant apart from each other, would it make sense for a
future version of maven to simply have a POM syntax like this:?
<dependency>
<id>org.eclipse.core.resources</id>
<version>3.2.1</version>
</dependency>
Or, to put the question another way, is there any conceptual difference
between groupId and artifactId that suggests org.eclipse.core.resources
should map as groupId=org.eclipse.core artifactId=resources, rather than
groupId=org.eclipse artifactId=core.resources ?
Max.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
