Hi Reinhard, Am 21.08.08 23:53, schrieb Reinhard Pötz:
After having already discussed the details, let's make a formal decision about versioning, SVN, Maven, namespaces issue tracking and CI for Cocoon 3.
[…]
Maven ------------------------------- We use functional names for all artifacts: org.apache.cocoon.pipeline:cocoon-pipeline:3.0.0 org.apache.cocoon.sitemap:cocoon-sitemap:3.0.0 org.apache.cocoon.servlet:cocoon-servlet:3.0.0 org.apache.cocoon.controller:cocoon-controller:3.0.0 org.apache.cocoon.rest:cocoon-rest:3.0.0 org.apache.cocoon.stringtemplate:cocoon-stringtemplate:3.0.0 By using the functional name as part of the groupId, Cocoon 2.2 and Cocoon 3 can be used together without getting any problems with the dependency resolution mechanisms of Maven or Ivy.
I just stumbled upon this again. Our group IDs look verbose and redundant at a first glance; from my experience it is rather unusual to use distinct group IDs for the individual projects. Would you mind elaborating a bit why it helps to have the artifact ID (functional name) as part of the group ID? Would the version number not be sufficient for the dependency resolution?
TIA! Best regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hartmann, CTO BeCompany GmbH http://www.becompany.ch Tel.: +41 (0) 43 818 57 01
