+1, but we should probably make all top level dirs consistent like this then too, right?
Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> Organization: Geomatys Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, May 6, 2013 2:52 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proposal to create sis-netcdf module Sunday >Le 05/05/13 23:31, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) a écrit : >> Let's have: >> >> sis-storage >> sis-kml >> sis-netcdf >> sis-shapefile > >What about the following? > >storage (without "sis-" prefix) > sis-kml > sis-netcdf > sis-shapefile > >The reason is that "storage" is not a JAR module, but only a POM >referencing sub-modules. If we keep the convention that only "real" JAR >modules have the "sis-" prefix, then it makes clear which directories >are JAR modules and which directories are groups for JAR sub-modules. >Furthermore it would keep the "sis-storage" name available for a real >JAR module if we want to put "storage core" code in it. > >In addition, "storage" sub-modules could also have the >"org.apache.sis.storage" groupId instead of only "org.apache.sis". If we >do that way, the Maven repository would contains a sub-directory named >"storage" with both the pom.xml definitions, and the sub-modules as >"sis-kml", "sis-netcdf", etc. sub-directories. So the groupId, the >package name, the directory tree in source code and the directory tree >on the Maven repository after deployment would all be consistent. > > Martin >
