Re: Best practice for choosing a groupId?
Yes. I use edu.ku.middleware for my team's projects in our local repository. -- Kathryn Huxtable Middleware Architect Core Middleware Information Technology, a division of Information Services The University of Kansas On 2/3/06 10:59 AM, "Mike Perham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The old naming practices are used for compatability with existing POMs. > I think your suggestion is an excellent one if we were to import the > commons jars now. > > For instance, new versions of spring and hibernate are going in > "org.springframework" and "org.hibernate" respectively. > > If your module is going to be publically published I would suggest using > your domain name, just like you do with packages. > > > -Original Message- > From: KC Baltz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:50 AM > To: users@maven.apache.org > Subject: Best practice for choosing a groupId? > > Are there any guidelines for choosing a groupId for a project? It seems > like there are several techniques on ibiblio and I think some of it has > historical motivation. > > For example, the Jakarta Commons projects all seem to use a groupId that > matches artifactId. So you end up with commons-util/commons-util. I > would have thought the groupId would have been "org.apache.jakarta" with > artifactId "commons-util". > > The other question is: does the choice of groupId really matter? Does > it affect anything beyond helping people locate a dependency in the > repository? > > K.C. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Best practice for choosing a groupId?
The old naming practices are used for compatability with existing POMs. I think your suggestion is an excellent one if we were to import the commons jars now. For instance, new versions of spring and hibernate are going in "org.springframework" and "org.hibernate" respectively. If your module is going to be publically published I would suggest using your domain name, just like you do with packages. -Original Message- From: KC Baltz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:50 AM To: users@maven.apache.org Subject: Best practice for choosing a groupId? Are there any guidelines for choosing a groupId for a project? It seems like there are several techniques on ibiblio and I think some of it has historical motivation. For example, the Jakarta Commons projects all seem to use a groupId that matches artifactId. So you end up with commons-util/commons-util. I would have thought the groupId would have been "org.apache.jakarta" with artifactId "commons-util". The other question is: does the choice of groupId really matter? Does it affect anything beyond helping people locate a dependency in the repository? K.C. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best practice for choosing a groupId?
Are there any guidelines for choosing a groupId for a project? It seems like there are several techniques on ibiblio and I think some of it has historical motivation. For example, the Jakarta Commons projects all seem to use a groupId that matches artifactId. So you end up with commons-util/commons-util. I would have thought the groupId would have been "org.apache.jakarta" with artifactId "commons-util". The other question is: does the choice of groupId really matter? Does it affect anything beyond helping people locate a dependency in the repository? K.C.
