I brought it up a few times on the IRC, but it didn't seem anyone was
interested. Once you start working with other projects it becomes a bit of a
pain distinguish them. Especially, our axis binding looks more like it would
belong to axis and not Tuscany.
There is a concern that these names do find themselves in war, and jars produced
so it can make them a bit long.
ant elder wrote:
+1
Rick also suggested this a while back, maybe we should raise a JIRA this
time so its not forgotten.
...ant
On 8/25/06, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Here is a list of JARs we're building:
axis2-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
spring-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
celtix-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
groovy-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
rmi-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
api-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
core-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
spi-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
wsdl-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
Don't we think the name of the jars are misleading? Can we tell these
jars
from tuscany project? The groupId makes them unique for the maven
repository
but it seems to be wierd when we copy these jars into some folders.
I propose that we restore the naming convention we had in M1: add
"tuscany-"
as a prefix to the artifactId.
Do you agree?
Thanks,
Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
