On 13 May 2016 6:15 p.m., "Gale Naylor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I buried this in my last "Download Pages" reply, but I wanted to make sure > you all saw it and could comment.
Thanks, it's good to spin out new threads :) > ----------------------------------- > Changes to git repo/groupId? > ------------------------------------ > As far as the GIt repo and groupId names for the Command-line Tool are > concerned, > I agree that keeping "commandline" as one word in the repo, groupId, and > artifacts looks cleaner. +1 > In looking at the repo names and pom.xml files, I wonder if it is > reasonable to change the following: > > incubator-taverna-common-activities > --> groupId to org.apache.taverna.common.activities I would -1 this as misleading hierarchy, as we have no other .common.*. Perhaps commonactivities? Problem with - is that it can't appear in Java package name, however in common activities they all have their own package names. > incubator-taverna-commandline > --> name to Apache Taverna Command-line +1 > incubator-taverna-workbench-common-activities > --> groupId to org.apache.workbench.common.activities > --> artifact to apache-workbench-common-activity > > I don't know how difficult it is to manage all the relationships, but it > would be nice if these were consistent. Should match the engine common activities. > ------------------------------------ > Question > ------------------------------------ > incubator-taverna-workbench-product has the same groupId as > incubator-taverna-workbench. Is this correct? Probably not, I think our new style has a 1:1 mapping (if not literal) between groupId and repository. This repo is special in that it relies on Workbench and Workbench Common Activities, but it is the distribution of the Workbench. So dependency wise it has to live outside the Workbench to avoid circular dependencies. Shall we call it workbench.product in the groupId ? Or distro?
