I believe the maven archetype has a bug if you choose a different package, but our core code handles it fine.
-Darius (by phone) On May 13, 2012 2:08 PM, "Burke Mamlin" <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we make any assumptions about the packaging of code within a module > (i.e., do we ever assume the package name instead of depending on > reference(s) to module package names or fully specified classes made in the > config.xml)? Hopefully not. > > -Burke > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Darius Jazayeri > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Indeed, our tooling and documentation (either copying the basicmodule or >> using the maven archetype) pushes people to namespace their modules as >> org.openmrs.module.moduleid. >> >> It seems like the module package (and maven group ID) should be the >> solution to Burke's wanting a uuid in each new module. >> >> One possible convention could be that if you're using the >> "org.openmrs.module" namespace, you are suggested to email >> [email protected] and request the id, whereas if you're using any other >> namespace, you need to follow whatever policies the owner of that namespace >> sets out. >> >> For example: >> * org.openmrs.module.uiframework -> need to follow OpenMRS policy: ask >> [email protected] >> * org.pih.openmrs.uiframework -> need to follow PIH policy >> * com.djazayeri.uiframework -> do whatever I want >> >> The downside to this approach is that it makes it more of a task to take >> a module developed in another namespace, and turn it into an >> "OpenMRS-owned" module. >> >> That said, for the specific "uiframework" example, I'd have known from >> the beginning that I definitely want it to be a "core OpenMRS" module >> someday, so I'd have requested an org.openmrs.module space. >> >> Whereas the work I'm doing on "zip of omods", and the work Mark is doing >> on provider management could make sense to start off under org.pih. And >> there's no reason they couldn't live there long-term, really. >> >> Just brainstorming here, what do others think about this? >> >> -Darius >> >> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Rowan Seymour <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Isn't the most useful function of a module id to serve as a unique Java >>> subpackage? >>> >>> On 12 May 2012 06:10, Burke Mamlin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> That's fine. >>>> >>>> Actually, I'd like to abandon our current [email protected] bottleneck >>>> approach to module IDs by adding a UUID to the module config to ensure >>>> uniqueness... or by auto-assigning devs a UUID that can be used to >>>> namespace any modules they create. >>>> >>>> [email protected] has served us well in ensuring naming conventions are >>>> followed in our repository and helping highlight redundant efforts; >>>> however, it would be nice to get past the "getting approval" & "ensuring >>>> unique module IDs" aspects. With those gone, the remaining uses of >>>> [email protected] (applying conventions & recognizing/highlighting >>>> redundant efforts) could probably be done better & in a more public way as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> -Burke >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Darius Jazayeri >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Code, (copying Dev) >>>>> >>>>> I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven >>>>> repo, and to the module repository: >>>>> >>>>> - uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x) >>>>> - uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework) >>>>> - appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that >>>>> can be enabled per user and role) >>>>> >>>>> I didn't email [email protected] at the time because I put the code in >>>>> my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed >>>>> these to maven and the module repo, I really *should* have requested >>>>> the module id. >>>>> >>>>> So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-) >>>>> >>>>> Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search >>>>> the only reference I found to emailing [email protected] is on this >>>>> page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking >>>>> about access to the svn repo. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at >>>>> github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework without asking >>>>> permission. But I *should* need to ask permission to take a module id >>>>> in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our >>>>> documentation to say you need to ask [email protected] to claim a >>>>> module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else? >>>>> >>>>> -Darius >>>>> >>>>> PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton >>>>> candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of >>>>> Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to >>>>> worry >>>>> about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow *is >>>>> * more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Click here to >>>> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >>>> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Rowan Seymour* >>> tel: +250 783835665 >>> http://twitter.com/rowanseymour >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> Click here to >>> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >>> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Click here to >> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >> > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
