Re: genesis-flava - genesis-default-flava
I spent a lot of hours with genesis 1.x looking through all the poms for the setting that was causing behavior I was wondering about to want to eliminate every bit of unnecessary complexity I could. In the event we come up with a flava that doesn't want to inherit from default-flava we can put it as a direct child of the root genesis project. Fair enough :-) I also changed the groupId to o.a.g.genesis from o.a.g.genesis.flava. why? Fewer groupIds == simpler better IMO. I don't see what the additional groupId adds except complexity and chance for confusion. Am I missing something? Its just a tool for organizing similar modules, like packages in java. I tend to organize stuff, which is why I put all flava's into their own groupId. --jason
genesis-flava - genesis-default-flava
Why was this module change made? If I recall I setup genesis-flava and genesis-default-flava (as a child of the previous) on purpose. Why was this changed? --jason
Re: genesis-flava - genesis-default-flava
On Jun 22, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: Why was this module change made? If I recall I setup genesis-flava and genesis-default-flava (as a child of the previous) on purpose. Why was this changed? Because I couldn't see the purpose. What good did genesis-flava do? It seemed to me that it only required maven to load one more pom for every genesis-using project. If you don't like genesis-java*-flava being children of genesis-default-flava then I think we should still avoid genesis-flava and make all the genesis-*-flava children of genesis. I also changed the groupId to o.a.g.genesis from o.a.g.genesis.flava. thanks david jencks --jason
Re: genesis-flava - genesis-default-flava
On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:03 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jun 22, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: Why was this module change made? If I recall I setup genesis-flava and genesis-default-flava (as a child of the previous) on purpose. Why was this changed? Because I couldn't see the purpose. What good did genesis-flava do? It seemed to me that it only required maven to load one more pom for every genesis-using project. If you don't like genesis- java*-flava being children of genesis-default-flava then I think we should still avoid genesis-flava and make all the genesis-*-flava children of genesis. I think I did that because I was unsure that every flava would want to include all of the default java stuff. Your only problem is the download of an additional pom? I also changed the groupId to o.a.g.genesis from o.a.g.genesis.flava. why? --jason
Re: genesis-flava - genesis-default-flava
On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:03 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jun 22, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: Why was this module change made? If I recall I setup genesis- flava and genesis-default-flava (as a child of the previous) on purpose. Why was this changed? Because I couldn't see the purpose. What good did genesis-flava do? It seemed to me that it only required maven to load one more pom for every genesis-using project. If you don't like genesis- java*-flava being children of genesis-default-flava then I think we should still avoid genesis-flava and make all the genesis-*-flava children of genesis. I think I did that because I was unsure that every flava would want to include all of the default java stuff. Your only problem is the download of an additional pom? I spent a lot of hours with genesis 1.x looking through all the poms for the setting that was causing behavior I was wondering about to want to eliminate every bit of unnecessary complexity I could. In the event we come up with a flava that doesn't want to inherit from default-flava we can put it as a direct child of the root genesis project. I also changed the groupId to o.a.g.genesis from o.a.g.genesis.flava. why? Fewer groupIds == simpler better IMO. I don't see what the additional groupId adds except complexity and chance for confusion. Am I missing something? thanks david jencks --jason
