On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
So bug #39977 is not an issue anymore?
The groupId bit isn't. Now we understand what it should be, we can use the
java package, and all will be fine.
Comment #2 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39977#c2)
still needs looking at, by someone who understands what's up with the pom.
Actually the groupId should be compliant to the package name.
OK, I've fixed it in svn. The next build will use org.apache.poi as the
groupId
Also, as well as changing the group id, should I put the files under
/poi/, or under /org.apache.poi/ ? It looks like most apache projects
just use their short name, but a few use org.apache.<name> . We
currently use /poi/.
The shorthand comes from the maven1 times where nobody cared about it.
But its ugly and also causes that browsing the repository at top-level
produces a really long list. There is quite a reasonable load on the server...
Anyways it is the same for java-packages. If you do NOT use it properly
it might clush with another project and causes big trouble.
Anyways its up to you how to decide...
Well, we've used it for ages without complaint from users or server
operators, so I don't see the need to change it right now. I'll try to
have a chat with some of the Mavern guys at apachecon EU in a couple of
weeks, and see what they think we should do about the distribution
directory name.
If anyone does have any thoughts on the poi pom file (eg values we should
add, or current ones to update), do drop an email to poi-dev saying what
we should fix and why :)
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
The Apache Jakarta Poi Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
