Re: Maven groupId question

[Peter Kriens]

I have tools to deploy a bundle to maven and I have a maven repo that is used 
from bnd. bnd is 100% bsn based so I need to map between the two. As both are 
artifact identifiers I think it is extremely useful if they have a mechanic 
mapping.

Kind regards,

Peter Kriens

On 6 mei 2010, at 11:34, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:18, Peter Kriens  wrote:
> 
>> I remember discussions about groupids and artifact ids mostly in relation
>> to the bundle symbolic name (which imho is more important in the end because
>> this is about Felix => OSGI). The problem is that there is no nice mapping
>> between the bsn <-> artifact/groupid. In this ancient discussion we defined
>> a mapping scheme as I recall which ended up with the current scheme.
>> 
>> In bnd I have a maven plugin that can work with maven repos but I need to
>> map the bsn to the maven ids to traverse the repository efficiently.
>> Currently I use the org.apache.felix prefix and some others. If every
>> subproject defines their own mapping of bsn <-> artifact/group id then this
>> will all become significantly harder.
>> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, why are you trying to find the groupId/artifactId out of
> the bsn ?  What is it used for ?
> Jars generated by maven usually include a META-INF/maven/ folder which might
> be helpfull too.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Last but not least, consistency has tremendous value because you spot
>> errors more quickly and you minimize the learning curve. And it is easier to
>> automate. I actually do not care what mapping is chosen for the bsn but from
>> an OSGi point of view I think consistency in the Felix project (which sets
>> an example for other projects) has great value.
>> 
>> Just my 2cts.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>>   Peter Kriens
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 mei 2010, at 23:44, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/5/10 15:27, Chris Custine wrote:
> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
>> some
> artifacts under that groupId?
> 
 
 They would have to control Apache DNS servers!  :-)
 
 Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but
>> the
 fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects)
>> has
 different needs.  Many other projects employ a combination of the 2
 approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast
 requirements for maven groupId naming.  The Maven developers themselves
 don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation.
>> (
 http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/)  IMHO that is an
 oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page.
 
 So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.  Must we really spend
 time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no
 constructive outcome no matter what the end result is?
 
>>> 
>>> I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far
>> the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has
>> given cause for concern.
>>> 
>>> For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each
>> subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just
>> because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when
>> trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some
>> understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId
>> of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own
>> identity"?
>>> 
>>> Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own
>> groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a
>> Maven repo. This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store
>> artifacts in the next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people
>> are conferring upon it will be lost.
>>> 
>>> -> richard
 Chris
 
 --
 Chris Custine
 FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
 My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
 Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
 Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
 Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
 
 
 On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo  wrote:
 
 
> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
>> some
> artifacts under that groupId?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
> 
> 
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> 
> 
>> One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly
>> controlled.
>> 
>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one
>> controls
>>> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per 

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/6/10 17:21, Chris Custine wrote:

All joking aside, the best place to search for an artifact now is the
sonatype Nexus instance which has a complete index of all of maven central.
  I recommend the GAV search page which also gives you a formatted dependency
declaration string for your project:
https://repository.sonatype.org/index.html#nexus-search;gav~
   


Right, I just assumed people would browse using some nice web UI, not 
trolling the server disk layout. :-)


-> richard


Chris

--
Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org


On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Guo Du  wrote:

   

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Richard S. Hall
wrote:
 

I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a
 

fair
 

amount of time each day browsing maven repositories.  I call it Maven
spelunking  ;-)
 

I guess you are just weird. ;-)
   

Not every day for me. But it's the first place to check when I need a
new jar dependency.

-Guo

 
   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Chris Custine]

All joking aside, the best place to search for an artifact now is the
sonatype Nexus instance which has a complete index of all of maven central.
 I recommend the GAV search page which also gives you a formatted dependency
declaration string for your project:
https://repository.sonatype.org/index.html#nexus-search;gav~

Chris

--
Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org


On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Guo Du  wrote:

> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Richard S. Hall 
> wrote:
> >> I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a
> fair
> >> amount of time each day browsing maven repositories.  I call it Maven
> >> spelunking  ;-)
> > I guess you are just weird. ;-)
> Not every day for me. But it's the first place to check when I need a
> new jar dependency.
>
> -Guo
>

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guo Du]

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Richard S. Hall  wrote:
>> I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a fair
>> amount of time each day browsing maven repositories.  I call it Maven
>> spelunking  ;-)
> I guess you are just weird. ;-)
Not every day for me. But it's the first place to check when I need a
new jar dependency.

-Guo

Re: Maven groupId question

[Karl Pauls]

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Richard S. Hall  wrote:
> On 5/5/10 22:42, Chris Custine wrote:
>>
>> Comments inline...
>>
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Richard S.
>> Hallwrote:
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far
>>> the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has
>>> given cause for concern.
>>>
>>> For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each
>>> subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId
>>> just
>>> because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when
>>> trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have
>>> some
>>> understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a
>>> groupId
>>> of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own
>>> identity"?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I totally agree with you on being consistent, and I guess I hadn't noticed
>> that we are diverging from the other Felix projects.  I think when we
>> moved
>> Karaf over from ServiceMix Kernel we just kept the naming convention we
>> had
>> in place and I'm not sure we thought about it much at the time.  I think
>> that alone makes it something we need to consider.
>>
>
> Keep in mind, I wasn't necessarily saying we should change it for Karaf, but
> I was trying to say that I don't think we should perpetuate this to other
> subprojects and/or expand its usage. So, for example, I'd be inclined to
> want to change Gogo to not use this approach.

I think its fine for karaf to do as it is done right now and I agree
that we should change gogo to the default approach.

regards,

Karl

>>> Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own
>>> groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing
>>> a
>>> Maven repo.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a fair
>> amount of time each day browsing maven repositories.  I call it Maven
>> spelunking  ;-)
>>
>
> I guess you are just weird. ;-)
>
> -> richard
>
>> I guess its just a personal thing, but like Guillaume, I just prefer a
>> more
>> hierarchical organization as opposed to a flat group with dozens or
>> hundreds
>> of artifacts.  I can't come up with a good technical argument for either
>> approach, but for the sake of consistency I think we should take a look.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store artifacts in
>>> the
>>> next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people are
>>> conferring
>>> upon it will be lost.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ->  richard
>>>
>>>  Chris
>>>

 --
 Chris Custine
 FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
 My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
 Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
 Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
 Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org


 On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo   wrote:




>
> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
> some
> artifacts under that groupId?
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
>
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>> One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly
>> controlled.
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo   wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one
>>> controls
>>> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So,
>>> I
>>> would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
>>> subprojects.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sahoo
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>>>
>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
>>>   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
>>> so it's better categorized.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall>>
>>>
>>>

 wrote:



>>>
>>> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>>>
>>>   org.apache.felix.gogo
>>>
>>> While most other subprojects are:
>>>
>>>   org.apache.felix
>>>
>>> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under
>>> the
>>> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It
>>> doesn't
>>> seem
>>> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO
>>> has
>>> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.f

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 22:42, Chris Custine wrote:

Comments inline...

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Richard S. Hallwrote:
...

   

I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far
the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has
given cause for concern.

For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each
subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just
because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when
trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some
understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId
of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own
identity"?

 

I totally agree with you on being consistent, and I guess I hadn't noticed
that we are diverging from the other Felix projects.  I think when we moved
Karaf over from ServiceMix Kernel we just kept the naming convention we had
in place and I'm not sure we thought about it much at the time.  I think
that alone makes it something we need to consider.
   


Keep in mind, I wasn't necessarily saying we should change it for Karaf, 
but I was trying to say that I don't think we should perpetuate this to 
other subprojects and/or expand its usage. So, for example, I'd be 
inclined to want to change Gogo to not use this approach.



Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own
groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a
Maven repo.
 


I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a fair
amount of time each day browsing maven repositories.  I call it Maven
spelunking  ;-)
   


I guess you are just weird. ;-)

-> richard


I guess its just a personal thing, but like Guillaume, I just prefer a more
hierarchical organization as opposed to a flat group with dozens or hundreds
of artifacts.  I can't come up with a good technical argument for either
approach, but for the sake of consistency I think we should take a look.


   

This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store artifacts in the
next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people are conferring
upon it will be lost.

 




   

->  richard

  Chris
 

--
Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org


On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo   wrote:



   

AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
some
artifacts under that groupId?

Thanks,
Sahoo


Guillaume Nodet wrote:



 

One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly
controlled.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo   wrote:




   

Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
subprojects.

Thanks,
Sahoo

[1]

http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html

Guillaume Nodet wrote:

btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet
  wrote:



Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall 

wrote:


   


I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

   org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

   org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO
has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more
consistent
if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?

->   richard




--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com














 




   


 


   
 
   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:18, Peter Kriens  wrote:

> I remember discussions about groupids and artifact ids mostly in relation
> to the bundle symbolic name (which imho is more important in the end because
> this is about Felix => OSGI). The problem is that there is no nice mapping
> between the bsn <-> artifact/groupid. In this ancient discussion we defined
> a mapping scheme as I recall which ended up with the current scheme.
>
> In bnd I have a maven plugin that can work with maven repos but I need to
> map the bsn to the maven ids to traverse the repository efficiently.
> Currently I use the org.apache.felix prefix and some others. If every
> subproject defines their own mapping of bsn <-> artifact/group id then this
> will all become significantly harder.
>

Out of curiosity, why are you trying to find the groupId/artifactId out of
the bsn ?  What is it used for ?
Jars generated by maven usually include a META-INF/maven/ folder which might
be helpfull too.


>
> Last but not least, consistency has tremendous value because you spot
> errors more quickly and you minimize the learning curve. And it is easier to
> automate. I actually do not care what mapping is chosen for the bsn but from
> an OSGi point of view I think consistency in the Felix project (which sets
> an example for other projects) has great value.
>
> Just my 2cts.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>Peter Kriens
>
>
>
> On 5 mei 2010, at 23:44, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
> > On 5/5/10 15:27, Chris Custine wrote:
> >>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> >>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
> some
> >>> artifacts under that groupId?
> >>>
> >>
> >> They would have to control Apache DNS servers!  :-)
> >>
> >> Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but
> the
> >> fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects)
> has
> >> different needs.  Many other projects employ a combination of the 2
> >> approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast
> >> requirements for maven groupId naming.  The Maven developers themselves
> >> don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation.
> (
> >> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/)  IMHO that is an
> >> oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page.
> >>
> >> So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.  Must we really spend
> >> time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no
> >> constructive outcome no matter what the end result is?
> >>
> >
> > I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far
> the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has
> given cause for concern.
> >
> > For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each
> subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just
> because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when
> trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some
> understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId
> of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own
> identity"?
> >
> > Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own
> groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a
> Maven repo. This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store
> artifacts in the next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people
> are conferring upon it will be lost.
> >
> > -> richard
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chris Custine
> >> FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
> >> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
> >> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
> >> Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
> >> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> >>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
> some
> >>> artifacts under that groupId?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Sahoo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>  One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly
> controlled.
> 
>  On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one
> controls
> > the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So,
> I
> > would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
> > subprojects.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sahoo
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
> >
> > Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> >
> > btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
> >   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
> >
> > On Wed, May

Re: Maven groupId question

[Peter Kriens]

I remember discussions about groupids and artifact ids mostly in relation to 
the bundle symbolic name (which imho is more important in the end because this 
is about Felix => OSGI). The problem is that there is no nice mapping between 
the bsn <-> artifact/groupid. In this ancient discussion we defined a mapping 
scheme as I recall which ended up with the current scheme. 

In bnd I have a maven plugin that can work with maven repos but I need to map 
the bsn to the maven ids to traverse the repository efficiently. Currently I 
use the org.apache.felix prefix and some others. If every subproject defines 
their own mapping of bsn <-> artifact/group id then this will all become 
significantly harder.

Last but not least, consistency has tremendous value because you spot errors 
more quickly and you minimize the learning curve. And it is easier to automate. 
I actually do not care what mapping is chosen for the bsn but from an OSGi 
point of view I think consistency in the Felix project (which sets an example 
for other projects) has great value.

Just my 2cts.

Kind regards,

Peter Kriens



On 5 mei 2010, at 23:44, Richard S. Hall wrote:

> On 5/5/10 15:27, Chris Custine wrote:
>>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
>>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
>>> artifacts under that groupId?
>>> 
>> 
>> They would have to control Apache DNS servers!  :-)
>> 
>> Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but the
>> fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects) has
>> different needs.  Many other projects employ a combination of the 2
>> approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast
>> requirements for maven groupId naming.  The Maven developers themselves
>> don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation. (
>> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/)  IMHO that is an
>> oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page.
>> 
>> So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.  Must we really spend
>> time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no
>> constructive outcome no matter what the end result is?
>>   
> 
> I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far the 
> conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has given 
> cause for concern.
> 
> For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each 
> subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just 
> because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when trying 
> to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some 
> understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId 
> of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own 
> identity"?
> 
> Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own 
> groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a 
> Maven repo. This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store 
> artifacts in the next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people 
> are conferring upon it will be lost.
> 
> -> richard
>> Chris
>> 
>> --
>> Chris Custine
>> FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
>> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
>> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
>> Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
>> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo  wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
>>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
>>> artifacts under that groupId?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sahoo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled.
 
 On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:
 
 
   
> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
> would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
> subprojects.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
> 
> [1]
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
> 
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> 
> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
>   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
> 
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
> so it's better categorized.
> 
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall 
>> wrote:
>>   
> 
> 
> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
> 
>   org.apache.felix.gogo
> 
> While

Re: Maven groupId question

[Chris Custine]

Comments inline...

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
...

>
> I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far
> the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has
> given cause for concern.
>
> For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each
> subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just
> because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when
> trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some
> understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId
> of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own
> identity"?
>

I totally agree with you on being consistent, and I guess I hadn't noticed
that we are diverging from the other Felix projects.  I think when we moved
Karaf over from ServiceMix Kernel we just kept the naming convention we had
in place and I'm not sure we thought about it much at the time.  I think
that alone makes it something we need to consider.


>
> Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own
> groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a
> Maven repo.


I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a fair
amount of time each day browsing maven repositories.  I call it Maven
spelunking  ;-)

I guess its just a personal thing, but like Guillaume, I just prefer a more
hierarchical organization as opposed to a flat group with dozens or hundreds
of artifacts.  I can't come up with a good technical argument for either
approach, but for the sake of consistency I think we should take a look.


> This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store artifacts in the
> next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people are conferring
> upon it will be lost.
>




>
> -> richard
>
>  Chris
>>
>> --
>> Chris Custine
>> FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
>> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
>> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
>> Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
>> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
>>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
>>> some
>>> artifacts under that groupId?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sahoo
>>>
>>>
>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly
 controlled.

 On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:




> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
> would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
> subprojects.
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
> [1]
>
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
>   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet
>  wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
> so it's better categorized.
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>
>   org.apache.felix.gogo
>
> While most other subprojects are:
>
>   org.apache.felix
>
> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
> seem
> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO
> has
> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>
> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
> it
> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
> given
> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more
> consistent
> if
> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
> having separate groupIds?
>
> ->  richard
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> 
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 15:27, Chris Custine wrote:

AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
artifacts under that groupId?
 


They would have to control Apache DNS servers!  :-)

Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but the
fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects) has
different needs.  Many other projects employ a combination of the 2
approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast
requirements for maven groupId naming.  The Maven developers themselves
don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation. (
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/)  IMHO that is an
oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page.

So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.  Must we really spend
time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no
constructive outcome no matter what the end result is?
   


I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so 
far the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the 
discussion has given cause for concern.


For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each 
subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId 
just because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic 
when trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to 
have some understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I 
create a groupId of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to 
give it "its own identity"?


Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their 
own groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are 
browsing a Maven repo. This is a pointless detail...if they change how 
they store artifacts in the next release of Maven then all of this extra 
meaning people are conferring upon it will be lost.


-> richard

Chris

--
Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org


On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo  wrote:

   

AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
artifacts under that groupId?

Thanks,
Sahoo


Guillaume Nodet wrote:

 

One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:


   

Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
subprojects.

Thanks,
Sahoo

[1]
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html

Guillaume Nodet wrote:

btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:



Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall 

wrote:
   



I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

   org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

   org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent
if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?

->  richard




--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com












 



   
 
   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 15:41, Guo Du wrote:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Richard S. Hall  wrote:
   

artifactId to "groupId.subproject", which means our JARs names are fully
qualified. So for us, artifactId (or JAR name) is all you need to know.
 

Didn't know this. It's very good practice in the world of OSGi bundles.

For this case, the sub project has it's own groupId make sense:
org.apache.felix.gogo.foo.X.Y.Z.jar is better than
org.apache.felix.foo.X.Y.Z.jar IMO.
   


Perhaps I didn't explain it very well. Our groupId has always been 
org.apache.felix, which is our package root. Our subprojects all get a 
package name under this root. All artifactIds are their fully qualified 
root.


So, for example, iPOJO's groupId is org.apache.felix, but the iPOJO arch 
module's artifactId is org.apache.felix.ipojo.arch. Likewise, all iPOJO 
modules start with org.apache.felix.ipojo, even though their groupId is 
org.apache.felix.


-> richard


-Guo
   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guo Du]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Richard S. Hall  wrote:
> artifactId to "groupId.subproject", which means our JARs names are fully
> qualified. So for us, artifactId (or JAR name) is all you need to know.
Didn't know this. It's very good practice in the world of OSGi bundles.

For this case, the sub project has it's own groupId make sense:
org.apache.felix.gogo.foo.X.Y.Z.jar is better than
org.apache.felix.foo.X.Y.Z.jar IMO.

-Guo

Re: Maven groupId question

[Chris Custine]

>
> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
> artifacts under that groupId?


They would have to control Apache DNS servers!  :-)

Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but the
fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects) has
different needs.  Many other projects employ a combination of the 2
approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast
requirements for maven groupId naming.  The Maven developers themselves
don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation. (
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/)  IMHO that is an
oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page.

So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.  Must we really spend
time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no
constructive outcome no matter what the end result is?

Chris

--
Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org


On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo  wrote:

> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
> artifacts under that groupId?
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
>
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled.
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
>>> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
>>> would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
>>> subprojects.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sahoo
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>>>
>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
>>>   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
>>> so it's better categorized.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall >> >wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>>>
>>>   org.apache.felix.gogo
>>>
>>> While most other subprojects are:
>>>
>>>   org.apache.felix
>>>
>>> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
>>> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
>>> seem
>>> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
>>> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>>>
>>> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
>>> it
>>> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
>>> given
>>> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent
>>> if
>>> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
>>> having separate groupIds?
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> 
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> 
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

+1   I fully second this analysis.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 20:10, Guo Du  wrote:

> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Richard S. Hall 
> wrote:
> > At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual
> > overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself
> since I
> > don't really see any added value.
> I believe all gogo java code belong to sub package of
> org.apache.felix.gogo. groupId play the same way as java package name.
> It's important to group similar function/class/module together. The
> group/package name should tell you where it come from/for without to
> see more details from artifact/class name.
>
> Event 100+ file in the same folder is not a problem for maven, but not
> pleasant for human to navigate/maintain :(
>
> -Guo
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

You have to be kidding.

$ whois felix.apache.org
NOT FOUND

So org.apache.felix is not a valid groupId for you ?

The domain is org.apache and it's own by the ASF.  Any subdomain is a valid
groupId for an ASF published jar.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 20:59, Sahoo  wrote:

> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
> artifacts under that groupId?
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
>
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled.
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
>>> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
>>> would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
>>> subprojects.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sahoo
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>>>
>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
>>>   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
>>> so it's better categorized.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall >> >wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>>>
>>>   org.apache.felix.gogo
>>>
>>> While most other subprojects are:
>>>
>>>   org.apache.felix
>>>
>>> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
>>> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
>>> seem
>>> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
>>> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>>>
>>> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
>>> it
>>> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
>>> given
>>> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent
>>> if
>>> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
>>> having separate groupIds?
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> 
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> 
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Re: Maven groupId question

[Sahoo]

AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if 
someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish 
some artifacts under that groupId?


Thanks,
Sahoo

Guillaume Nodet wrote:

One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:
  

Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls the 
domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I would 
expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix subprojects.

Thanks,
Sahoo

[1] http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html

Guillaume Nodet wrote:

btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:



Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall wrote:



I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

   org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

   org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?

-> richard




--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com













  

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo  wrote:
> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls the 
> domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I would 
> expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix subprojects.
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
> [1] http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
>    org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
> so it's better categorized.
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>
>
> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>
>    org.apache.felix.gogo
>
> While most other subprojects are:
>
>    org.apache.felix
>
> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't seem
> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>
> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make it
> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a given
> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent if
> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
> having separate groupIds?
>
> -> richard
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> 
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Re: Maven groupId question

[Sahoo]

Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls 
the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I 
would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix 
subprojects.


Thanks,
Sahoo

[1] http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html

Guillaume Nodet wrote:

btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:

  

Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall wrote:



I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

   org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

   org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?

-> richard

  


--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com







  

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 14:10, Guo Du wrote:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Richard S. Hall  wrote:
   

At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual
overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself since I
don't really see any added value.
 

I believe all gogo java code belong to sub package of
org.apache.felix.gogo. groupId play the same way as java package name.
It's important to group similar function/class/module together. The
group/package name should tell you where it come from/for without to
see more details from artifact/class name.
   


I am not aware of use cases for just having the groupId, it seems you 
always need a groupId and artifactId, which gives you all the 
information you need.


I think some of this is related to how we do our artifact naming at 
Felix, since I think typical maven naming for a JAR (IIRC) is 
artifactId-version.jar and groupId is something separate, but we set 
artifactId to "groupId.subproject", which means our JARs names are fully 
qualified. So for us, artifactId (or JAR name) is all you need to know.



Event 100+ file in the same folder is not a problem for maven, but not
pleasant for human to navigate/maintain :(
   


I would think the Maven creators didn't intend users to navigate inside 
there in the first place.


-> richard


-Guo
   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guo Du]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Richard S. Hall  wrote:
> At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual
> overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself since I
> don't really see any added value.
I believe all gogo java code belong to sub package of
org.apache.felix.gogo. groupId play the same way as java package name.
It's important to group similar function/class/module together. The
group/package name should tell you where it come from/for without to
see more details from artifact/class name.

Event 100+ file in the same folder is not a problem for maven, but not
pleasant for human to navigate/maintain :(

-Guo

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 12:40, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:33, Richard S. Hall  wrote:

   

On 5/5/10 12:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

 

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:03, Richard S. Hall
  wrote:



   

On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:



 

Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.




   

I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long
names, e.g.:

org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar

So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files
all
of the form:

org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar

I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its
repo...seems like an implementation detail to me.




 

Agreed, as is the groupId really.  There are a lot of subprojects in the
ASF
that don't even start with their TLP  ;-)
I think it's just makes things more difficult for users.  I'm not sure we
have anybody out there that downloads all the iPojo jars one by one, so
trying to make those first class citizens does not make sense to me (i'm
referring to the main download page).   I have actaully done the same for
gogo, even if i also think it's useless (just to be consistent and not
start
such discussions).   Adding the 20+ jars from Karaf would not make sense
either imho.

Subprojects that are composed of multiple bundles are not necesseraly
meant
to be consumer by picking the bundles one by one.   That would anyway
still
be possible because all the bundles are available from maven, and users
that
start doing such things are well aware of that usually.

So really, I think subprojects should have more of their own identity.
  The
fact that they belong to a given TLP is mostly irrelevant for the
end-user.


   

To me it isn't really about issues of identity or even organization, it is
only about specifying dependencies in pom files and know which groupId to
use...I like to remember as few things as possible. Clearly, though, it's
not the end of the world either way since a little poking around will help
you figure out the groupId if you get it wrong.

As far as the end user is concerned, all they see is the name of the JAR
file and they don't have any idea about groupIds etc., so it doesn't really
help them in anyway.

 

Most of the users of the projects i've been working on the past years use
maven, so they do know about groupIds and artifactIds.
   


But you certainly can't be arguing that we expect users to know Maven to 
understand the structure of our projects! :-D


-> richard



   

Regarding trying to view sub-groupIds as being for collections of modules
that aren't intended to be used independently. I understand what you are
saying and in terms of Karaf in perhaps makes sense, but in general i'd hope
that people design all of their modules with the idea that they can reused
independently in new contexts. For example, the simple Gogo commands module
I just committed, if the RFC actually becomes an OSGi spec, then they it
would work with any impl, not just Gogo.

At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual
overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself since I
don't really see any added value.

->  richard



 


   

->   richard


  On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall


 

  wrote:





   

I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO
has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more
consistent
if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?

->richard





 





   


 



   
 


   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:33, Richard S. Hall  wrote:

> On 5/5/10 12:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:03, Richard S. Hall
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
 so it's better categorized.




>>> I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long
>>> names, e.g.:
>>>
>>>org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar
>>>
>>> So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files
>>> all
>>> of the form:
>>>
>>>org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar
>>>
>>> I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its
>>> repo...seems like an implementation detail to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed, as is the groupId really.  There are a lot of subprojects in the
>> ASF
>> that don't even start with their TLP  ;-)
>> I think it's just makes things more difficult for users.  I'm not sure we
>> have anybody out there that downloads all the iPojo jars one by one, so
>> trying to make those first class citizens does not make sense to me (i'm
>> referring to the main download page).   I have actaully done the same for
>> gogo, even if i also think it's useless (just to be consistent and not
>> start
>> such discussions).   Adding the 20+ jars from Karaf would not make sense
>> either imho.
>>
>> Subprojects that are composed of multiple bundles are not necesseraly
>> meant
>> to be consumer by picking the bundles one by one.   That would anyway
>> still
>> be possible because all the bundles are available from maven, and users
>> that
>> start doing such things are well aware of that usually.
>>
>> So really, I think subprojects should have more of their own identity.
>>  The
>> fact that they belong to a given TLP is mostly irrelevant for the
>> end-user.
>>
>>
>
> To me it isn't really about issues of identity or even organization, it is
> only about specifying dependencies in pom files and know which groupId to
> use...I like to remember as few things as possible. Clearly, though, it's
> not the end of the world either way since a little poking around will help
> you figure out the groupId if you get it wrong.
>
> As far as the end user is concerned, all they see is the name of the JAR
> file and they don't have any idea about groupIds etc., so it doesn't really
> help them in anyway.
>

Most of the users of the projects i've been working on the past years use
maven, so they do know about groupIds and artifactIds.


>
> Regarding trying to view sub-groupIds as being for collections of modules
> that aren't intended to be used independently. I understand what you are
> saying and in terms of Karaf in perhaps makes sense, but in general i'd hope
> that people design all of their modules with the idea that they can reused
> independently in new contexts. For example, the simple Gogo commands module
> I just committed, if the RFC actually becomes an OSGi spec, then they it
> would work with any impl, not just Gogo.
>
> At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual
> overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself since I
> don't really see any added value.
>
> -> richard
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> ->  richard
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall
>>>
>>>
  wrote:





> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>
>org.apache.felix.gogo
>
> While most other subprojects are:
>
>org.apache.felix
>
> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
> seem
> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO
> has
> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>
> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
> it
> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
> given
> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more
> consistent
> if
> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
> having separate groupIds?
>
> ->   richard
>
>
>
>
>





>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 12:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:03, Richard S. Hall  wrote:

   

On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

 

Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.


   

I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long
names, e.g.:

org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar

So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files all
of the form:

org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar

I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its
repo...seems like an implementation detail to me.


 

Agreed, as is the groupId really.  There are a lot of subprojects in the ASF
that don't even start with their TLP  ;-)
I think it's just makes things more difficult for users.  I'm not sure we
have anybody out there that downloads all the iPojo jars one by one, so
trying to make those first class citizens does not make sense to me (i'm
referring to the main download page).   I have actaully done the same for
gogo, even if i also think it's useless (just to be consistent and not start
such discussions).   Adding the 20+ jars from Karaf would not make sense
either imho.

Subprojects that are composed of multiple bundles are not necesseraly meant
to be consumer by picking the bundles one by one.   That would anyway still
be possible because all the bundles are available from maven, and users that
start doing such things are well aware of that usually.

So really, I think subprojects should have more of their own identity.  The
fact that they belong to a given TLP is mostly irrelevant for the end-user.
   


To me it isn't really about issues of identity or even organization, it 
is only about specifying dependencies in pom files and know which 
groupId to use...I like to remember as few things as possible. Clearly, 
though, it's not the end of the world either way since a little poking 
around will help you figure out the groupId if you get it wrong.


As far as the end user is concerned, all they see is the name of the JAR 
file and they don't have any idea about groupIds etc., so it doesn't 
really help them in anyway.


Regarding trying to view sub-groupIds as being for collections of 
modules that aren't intended to be used independently. I understand what 
you are saying and in terms of Karaf in perhaps makes sense, but in 
general i'd hope that people design all of their modules with the idea 
that they can reused independently in new contexts. For example, the 
simple Gogo commands module I just committed, if the RFC actually 
becomes an OSGi spec, then they it would work with any impl, not just Gogo.


At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual 
overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself 
since I don't really see any added value.


-> richard



   

->  richard


  On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall
 

  wrote:



   

I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent
if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?

->   richard



 




   
 


   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:03, Richard S. Hall  wrote:

> On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
>> so it's better categorized.
>>
>>
>
> I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long
> names, e.g.:
>
>org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar
>
> So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files all
> of the form:
>
>org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar
>
> I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its
> repo...seems like an implementation detail to me.
>
>
Agreed, as is the groupId really.  There are a lot of subprojects in the ASF
that don't even start with their TLP  ;-)
I think it's just makes things more difficult for users.  I'm not sure we
have anybody out there that downloads all the iPojo jars one by one, so
trying to make those first class citizens does not make sense to me (i'm
referring to the main download page).   I have actaully done the same for
gogo, even if i also think it's useless (just to be consistent and not start
such discussions).   Adding the 20+ jars from Karaf would not make sense
either imho.

Subprojects that are composed of multiple bundles are not necesseraly meant
to be consumer by picking the bundles one by one.   That would anyway still
be possible because all the bundles are available from maven, and users that
start doing such things are well aware of that usually.

So really, I think subprojects should have more of their own identity.  The
fact that they belong to a given TLP is mostly irrelevant for the end-user.


> -> richard
>
>
>  On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>>>
>>>org.apache.felix.gogo
>>>
>>> While most other subprojects are:
>>>
>>>org.apache.felix
>>>
>>> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
>>> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
>>> seem
>>> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
>>> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>>>
>>> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
>>> it
>>> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
>>> given
>>> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent
>>> if
>>> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
>>> having separate groupIds?
>>>
>>> ->  richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.
   


I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long 
names, e.g.:


org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar

So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files 
all of the form:


org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar

I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its 
repo...seems like an implementation detail to me.


-> richard


On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall  wrote:

   

I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?

->  richard

 



   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

On 5/5/10 11:48, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

Hi Richard,

I prefer to have seperated groupId to avoid to have too much jar in the same 
directory on the maven repo.
I think that it's easier and more well sorted using groupId directory.
   


IC. We make it more difficult for us to remember so the server has an 
easier time... ;-)


-> richard


Regards
JB
-Original Message-
From: "Richard S. Hall"
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 11:20:01
To: dev
Subject: Maven groupId question

I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

  org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

  org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
seem necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example
iPOJO has multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
it somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
given subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more
consistent if every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any
benefits of having separate groupIds?

->  richard
   

Re: Maven groupId question

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Richard,

I prefer to have seperated groupId to avoid to have too much jar in the same 
directory on the maven repo.
I think that it's easier and more well sorted using groupId directory.

Regards
JB
-Original Message-
From: "Richard S. Hall" 
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 11:20:01 
To: dev
Subject: Maven groupId question

I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

 org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

 org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the 
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't 
seem necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example 
iPOJO has multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.

I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make 
it somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a 
given subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more 
consistent if every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any 
benefits of having separate groupIds?

-> richard

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall  wrote:

> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>
>org.apache.felix.gogo
>
> While most other subprojects are:
>
>org.apache.felix
>
> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't seem
> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>
> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make it
> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a given
> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent if
> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
> having separate groupIds?
>
> -> richard
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Re: Maven groupId question

[Guillaume Nodet]

btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
   org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet  wrote:

> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
> so it's better categorized.
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>>
>>org.apache.felix.gogo
>>
>> While most other subprojects are:
>>
>>org.apache.felix
>>
>> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
>> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't seem
>> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO has
>> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>>
>> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make it
>> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a given
>> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more consistent if
>> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
>> having separate groupIds?
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> 
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Maven groupId question

[Richard S. Hall]

I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:

org.apache.felix.gogo

While most other subprojects are:

org.apache.felix

Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the 
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't 
seem necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example 
iPOJO has multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.


I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make 
it somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a 
given subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more 
consistent if every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any 
benefits of having separate groupIds?


-> richard