> 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>
Didn't Bernd say there were some issues with this (everything with the same group id?) > 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. There's an interesting issue here. What if you use tomahawk in your project and you want to use the RI? I guess you end up downloading MyFaces api, impl and commons into your m2 repository (for build purposes) but use whatever implementation you want in your WAR. That sound right? > I think all of them should be under a single parent pom, then we can > easily build all of them as a group. I agreed with you on this earlier. Single parent pom is useful for a single list of developers, etc. Plus as you say, you can run install on the parent pom and install everything. The only matter that remains is whether to declare most of the dependcies there or to repeat them as necessary in the modules that need them (the way we're doing it now.) > > TTFN, > > -bd- Sean
