On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 17:38, Steve Garcia wrote:
> Yea there are advantages and disadvantages either way. A big advantage of
> keeping the existing repository is when I see jar packages I'm not familiar
> with, there is a better change I'll look into them out of curiosity. I've
> learned more abo
uld live with either scenario.
>
> Ryan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:55 PM
> To: 'Maven Users List'
> Subject: RE: groupId naming convention
>
> > On Tue, 2003-12-23 at
ber 23, 2003 3:55 PM
To: 'Maven Users List'
Subject: RE: groupId naming convention
> On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 14:37, Sonnek, Ryan wrote:
> > Is there any reason for the current groupId naming
> convention? I find
> > it unnecessary that nearly all of the artif
> On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 14:37, Sonnek, Ryan wrote:
> > Is there any reason for the current groupId naming
> convention? I find
> > it unnecessary that nearly all of the artifacts on ibiblio have
> > duplicate groupIds and artifactIds. Could the groupId be
> chan
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 14:37, Sonnek, Ryan wrote:
> Is there any reason for the current groupId naming convention? I find it
> unnecessary that nearly all of the artifacts on ibiblio have duplicate
> groupIds and artifactIds. Could the groupId be changed to use the reverse
>
Is there any reason for the current groupId naming convention? I find it
unnecessary that nearly all of the artifacts on ibiblio have duplicate
groupIds and artifactIds. Could the groupId be changed to use the reverse
DNS name (ie: org.apache.maven)? Eclipse has used this convention for
naming
