Hi Sean,
On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:33 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
I would say tomahawk and core are independent of one another.
Actually all of the "top" level POMS would be independent of one
another. So you would have 3 separate group ids.
org.apache.myfaces.core
org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk
org.apache.myfaces.commons
What is the significance of the group id? I know that your repository
will have one folder for each but what else does it mean? Underneath
the group id folder is the version right? If each of these 3 can have
their own release cycle then I think we *must* have 3 group ids right?
Group ID is kind of like the package spec in java, use reverse domain
name to uniquely define your whole thing, then artifactId defines the
individual parts. I'm thinking something like this;
<groupId>org.apache.myfaces</groupId>
<artifactId>core</artifactId>
<version>1.1.2-SNAPSHOT</version>
<groupId>org.apache.myfaces</groupId>
<artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
<version>1.3-SNAPSHOT</version>
<groupId>org.apache.myfaces</groupId>
<artifactId>commons</artifactId>
<version>1.1.2-SNAPSHOT</version>
then when a user wants to specify a dependency (if we have build our
poms correctly) they could specify either tomahawk to get the
components and the impl, or just core to get just the impl.
I think all of them should be under a single parent pom, then we can
easily build all of them as a group.
TTFN,
-bd-
