"Richard S. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/31/2006 05:42:18 AM:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > 4. Jeff also insist on being able to put jars in a single
> directory, claiming
> > management agents get an easier job.
Subtlety: It has been beaten into me time and again by consumers that
forcing them into particular layouts is problematic. Eclipse historically
has expected certain things from the layout and we have been working to
eliminate these expectations in response to the feedback we are getting.
It is not just management agents who are affected here. It is anyone who
has to ship, provide, store or organize bundles. Depending on your
usecases/scenarios this may be sysadmins, release engineers, developers,
end users, ... This is exactly the point, you are a producer creating a
bundle. The bundle as a whole should be as robust as possible and you do
well to avoid assumptions about how that bundle will be consumed.
> Since there is an implied parent-child relationship between groups and
> their artifacts. Currently, we have:
> * groupId = org.apache.felix
> * artifactId = org.apache.felix.subproject
As a point of interest, why cant the group id be "felix"? It has been
suggested that the path length and redundancy be eliminated by removing
parts of the artifactID. Why not remove parts of the groupId?
> Being able to have the first approach (without the redundancy and the
> short svn directory names), but with the freedom to name our resulting
> JAR files ${groupId}.${artifactId}-${version}.jar seems like it would be
> the holy grail.
Yes
Jeff
