On 3/23/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I think it would be better to use a 3 levels project like this : > > groupdId : org.apache > artifactId : struts > | > ---------------- groupdId : org.apache.struts > | artifactId : action > | | > | |--- all the sub projects share the groupId > org.apache.struts.action > | > | > ---------------- groupdId : org.apache.struts > artifactId : shale > | > |--- all the sub projects share the groupId > org.apache.struts.shale > > Those are best practices recommended by the Maven team.
AFAICT, this is exactly what I'm suggesting -- that all the Action related artifacts share the 'org.apache.struts.action' groupId. I didn't understand your initial comment about a "parent project" though. We don't have one. We have three separate frameworks -- Action, Shale, and Tiles. Shale and Tiles already live in org.apache.struts.shale and org.apache.struts.tiles, respectively: http://cvs.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository/org/apache/struts/ (Martin, you wouldn't declare a dependency on anything at the org.apache:struts level... there won't be any build artifacts at that level, it's just an administrative grouping.) -- Wendy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
