You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2006/06/05 02:07:14 UTC
I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent
renaming, the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either use
org.apache.geronimo
or
org.apache.geronimo.activation
org.apache.geronimo.axis
org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
...
org.apache.geronimo.webservices
for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
preferring the shorter name.
Comments?
thanks
david jencks
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Here's the discussion on why we had to change the groupIds
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg19426.html
And here's the JIRA that restructured the POMs and gave those groupIds.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1755
I hope I understood what David is saying correctly.
I guess I'm okay with renaming configs as modules but I think we are
better off keeping separate groupIds for each major branch under
geronimo root. In the m2 repo, this would then be analogous to keeping
the jars, cars, etc separate in the current m2 repo. If we had the
same groupId (o.a.g), then all the artifacts from modules, configs,
apps, plugins etc would end up together in one dir in the repo (o.a.g)
o/a/g/geronimo-kernel (module artifact)
o/a/g/geronimo-deployment-plugin (plugin artifact)
o/a/g/welcome-jetty (config artifact)
Now, maybe this is not such a bad thing but I hope some resident M2
gurus can weigh in on this too.
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/5/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I guess the other consideration is for people outside our project that want to pick up piece parts
> (like the Tx manager). Please remember that not all OSes will be able to tolerate super long file
> names and these will go into the repo. I know there is some head room but were stealing it from the
> users.
>
> David Jencks wrote:
> > Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
> >
> > org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> > org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
> >
> > I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent renaming,
> > the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
> >
> > More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part or
> > all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either use
> > org.apache.geronimo
> >
> > or
> >
> > org.apache.geronimo.activation
> > org.apache.geronimo.axis
> > org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> > ...
> > org.apache.geronimo.webservices
> >
> > for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> > org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
> > usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
> >
> > For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> > org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> > preferring the shorter name.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I guess the other consideration is for people outside our project that want to pick up piece parts
(like the Tx manager). Please remember that not all OSes will be able to tolerate super long file
names and these will go into the repo. I know there is some head room but were stealing it from the
users.
David Jencks wrote:
> Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
>
> org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
>
> I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent renaming,
> the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
>
> More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part or
> all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either use
> org.apache.geronimo
>
> or
>
> org.apache.geronimo.activation
> org.apache.geronimo.axis
> org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> ...
> org.apache.geronimo.webservices
>
> for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
> usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
>
> For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> preferring the shorter name.
>
> Comments?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
>
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
Hi Dave,
I don't have preference for anything wrt the naming so I'm +0 for the
change if it suits you. We'll see how it goes once the conversion's
done. At the moment I think we should rather focus on achieving the
final result (and to be honest the change doesn't buy us much) but
don't want to hinder introducing it only because I haven't completely
grasped it yet.
Jacek
On 6/5/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
>
> org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
>
> I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent
> renaming, the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
>
> More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
> or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either use
> org.apache.geronimo
>
> or
>
> org.apache.geronimo.activation
> org.apache.geronimo.axis
> org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> ...
> org.apache.geronimo.webservices
>
> for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
> usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
>
> For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> preferring the shorter name.
>
> Comments?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
>> o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
>> o.a.g.plugins
>> o.a.g.assemblies
>> o.a.g.applications
>> o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
>
> I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
I like this with the exception that I want to be clear that o.a.g.xxx
really means the groupId is org.apache.geronimo
I agree with jason that we may want to add more groupIds in the
future, but I think the above proposal is good for what we have now
and allows for extension.
thanks
david jencks
>
> --jason
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
>> o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
>> o.a.g.plugins
>> o.a.g.assemblies
>> o.a.g.applications
>> o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
>
> I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
>
Coming in late on this thread.
I don't like conceptual groupIds. I do like o.a.g for nearly
everything (specs excluded). I do like groupId to at least match the
package name.
-David
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:41 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package
>> name for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any
>> opinion. For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
>
> Can you be more specific? What do you want the transaction jar
> groupId to be? o.a.g or o.a.g.transaction?
Yes, that was confusing. Sorry
o.a.g is cool... I am most concerned about the groupId being the
first part of package name. Said another way, I don't want to see
o.a.g.foo on a jar containing the class o.a.g.bar.Stuff.
-dain
> I'm waffling but I guess I agree that shorter is better for the
> assemblies, I would prefer o.a.g rather than o.a.g.assemblies
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>>> o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
>>>> o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
>>>> o.a.g.plugins
>>>> o.a.g.assemblies
>>>> o.a.g.applications
>>>> o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
>>>
>>> I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package
> name for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any
> opinion. For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
Can you be more specific? What do you want the transaction jar
groupId to be? o.a.g or o.a.g.transaction?
I'm waffling but I guess I agree that shorter is better for the
assemblies, I would prefer o.a.g rather than o.a.g.assemblies
thanks
david jencks
>
> -dain
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>>> o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
>>> o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
>>> o.a.g.plugins
>>> o.a.g.assemblies
>>> o.a.g.applications
>>> o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
>>
>> I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
>>
>> --jason
>
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package name
for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any opinion.
For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
-dain
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
>> o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
>> o.a.g.plugins
>> o.a.g.assemblies
>> o.a.g.applications
>> o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
>
> I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
>
> --jason
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
> o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
> o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
> o.a.g.plugins
> o.a.g.assemblies
> o.a.g.applications
> o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
--jason
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
We already use a separate groupId for specs. (o.a.g.specs). We have to
decide between having some 5 top level groupIds under o.a.g versus
having all artifacts for modules, configs, specs, samples, under the
same groupId. I am beginning to think, seeing the latter in the repo
is more confusing.
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
> > I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
> Can you supply a concrete use case?
> > but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
> > right now.
> >
> > Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
> > and at that time I think we may want to introduce one or two
> > additional groupId's to keep the repo organized.
> >
> > I think it is premature to be talking about changing groupId's right now.
>
> I don't agree. Unless I'm missing something, there's no point in waiting.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> > On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> David Jencks wrote:
> >> > Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
> >> >
> >> > org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> >> > org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
> >> >
> >> > I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent renaming,
> >> > the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
> >> >
> >> > More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
> >> > or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd
> >> either use
> >> > org.apache.geronimo
> >> >
> >> > or
> >> >
> >> > org.apache.geronimo.activation
> >> > org.apache.geronimo.axis
> >> > org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> >> > ...
> >> > org.apache.geronimo.webservices
> >> >
> >> > for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> >> > org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
> >> > usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
> >> >
> >> > For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> >> > org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> >> > preferring the shorter name.
> >> >
> >> > Comments?
> >>
> >> I think that we should keep everything org.apache.geronimo. Having a
> >> byzantine group id hierarchy will only confuse those poor souls that
> >> want to use our artifacts.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
> > I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
> Can you supply a concrete use case?
Sure, I believe that we will eventually get G split up into a few
smaller chunks.
Probably, one tree of modules, that represents the very core of G,
none of the J2EE bits at all. Then another that provides the J2EE
behaviors and then another that provides different flavors of J2EE
bits that can be plugged in.
org.apache.geronimo = core
org.apache.geronimo.j2ee = j2ee
...
Maven groupId's are very useful to organize components that work
together. So, for example, if you just needed the basic core to run
your non-j2ee application on, then you would know that you just need
all of the org.apache.geronimo artifacts, and you would know that
something is starting to creep in if org.apache.geronimo.j2ee start to
pop up.
BTW, I do not believe that groupId's need to be 100% related to the
package names of classes that they contain either. They should be
mostly related though...
> > I think it is premature to be talking about changing groupId's right now.
>
> I don't agree. Unless I'm missing something, there's no point in waiting.
The reason why I think that it is premature is that we have not really
even begun to discus how to best restructure the source tree. I do
believe that we really should do this once we move to m2.
The current structure was designed around how m1 worked and the
limitations of how the reactor found projects. Now that m2 has a
better view on how this works, we are free to nest modules into more
domain specific groups.
While we could re-groupId now, we will probably end up doing it again
once we've restructured w/m2... so, I think that it would probably
have less impact to delay any major groupId changes until we get m2
support in place.
--jason
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Jason Dillon wrote:
> I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
Can you supply a concrete use case?
> but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
> right now.
>
> Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
> and at that time I think we may want to introduce one or two
> additional groupId's to keep the repo organized.
>
> I think it is premature to be talking about changing groupId's right now.
I don't agree. Unless I'm missing something, there's no point in waiting.
Regards,
Alan
> On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>> > Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
>> >
>> > org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
>> > org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
>> >
>> > I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent renaming,
>> > the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
>> >
>> > More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
>> > or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd
>> either use
>> > org.apache.geronimo
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > org.apache.geronimo.activation
>> > org.apache.geronimo.axis
>> > org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
>> > ...
>> > org.apache.geronimo.webservices
>> >
>> > for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
>> > org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
>> > usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
>> >
>> > For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
>> > org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
>> > preferring the shorter name.
>> >
>> > Comments?
>>
>> I think that we should keep everything org.apache.geronimo. Having a
>> byzantine group id hierarchy will only confuse those poor souls that
>> want to use our artifacts.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
right now.
Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
and at that time I think we may want to introduce one or two
additional groupId's to keep the repo organized.
I think it is premature to be talking about changing groupId's right now.
--jason
On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
> > Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
> >
> > org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> > org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
> >
> > I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent renaming,
> > the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
> >
> > More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
> > or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either use
> > org.apache.geronimo
> >
> > or
> >
> > org.apache.geronimo.activation
> > org.apache.geronimo.axis
> > org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> > ...
> > org.apache.geronimo.webservices
> >
> > for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> > org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
> > usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
> >
> > For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> > org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> > preferring the shorter name.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I think that we should keep everything org.apache.geronimo. Having a
> byzantine group id hierarchy will only confuse those poor souls that
> want to use our artifacts.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
> Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
>
> org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
>
> I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent renaming,
> the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
>
> More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
> or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either use
> org.apache.geronimo
>
> or
>
> org.apache.geronimo.activation
> org.apache.geronimo.axis
> org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> ...
> org.apache.geronimo.webservices
>
> for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> org.apache.geronimo for all the jars. However if recommended maven
> usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
>
> For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> preferring the shorter name.
>
> Comments?
I think that we should keep everything org.apache.geronimo. Having a
byzantine group id hierarchy will only confuse those poor souls that
want to use our artifacts.
Regards,
Alan
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
As expressed in this mail, time has come to consider this issue
again. With current groupIds 'target' directory can not be deleted on
windows during the build. It has deeply nested files with long names, a
very familiar issue by now..(see the error message posted below). Here
is an [RTC] posted about this issue :
http://www.nabble.com/-RTC--initial-m2-groupIds-t1738517.html#a4724585
Windows experts please review the issue and provide comments and
votes.
Thanks
Anita
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] [clean:clean]
[INFO] Deleting directory
D:\anita\geronimo\geronimo-1.2\configs\console-tomcat\target
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Failed to delete directory:
D:\xxxxx\geronimo\geronimo-1.2\configs\console-tomcat\target. R
son: Unable to delete file
D:\xxxxx\geronimo\geronimo-1.2\configs\console-tomcat\target\repository
rg\apache\geronimo\configs\webconsole-tomcat\1.2-SNAPSHOT\webconsole-tomcat-1.2-SNAPSHOT.car\stand
d.war\META-INF\maven\org.apache.geronimo.applications.console\geronimo-console-standard
Here are the exerpts from an [RTC]
--- anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> inline..
>
> --- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
> >
> > org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> > org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
> >
> > I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent
> > renaming, the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
>
> yep
>
> >
> > More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be
> part
> >
> > or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd
> either
> > use
> > org.apache.geronimo
> >
> > or
> >
> > org.apache.geronimo.activation
> > org.apache.geronimo.axis
> > org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> > ...
> > org.apache.geronimo.webservices
> >
> > for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> > org.apache.geronimo for all the jars.
>
> so it will be -
> o.a.g - all jars
> o.a.g.plugins - all plugins
> o.a.g.modules - all cars ?
> o.a.g.applications - all apps and
> o.a.g.specs -
> I also agree we do not need o.a.g.axis etc.
>
> However if recommended maven
> > usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
> >
> > For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
>
> > org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> > preferring the shorter name.
> We might have to come back to trim the names once we have the
> applications cars. I prefer o.a.g.modules (like specs). It will keep
> the jars and the cars in different directories.
> Should we remove configurations from the <name> too, e.g.
> "geronimo configuration for performing service deployments" ?
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
inline..
--- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
>
> org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
>
> I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent
> renaming, the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
yep
>
> More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
>
> or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar. So, we'd either
> use
> org.apache.geronimo
>
> or
>
> org.apache.geronimo.activation
> org.apache.geronimo.axis
> org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> ...
> org.apache.geronimo.webservices
>
> for the jars. Personally I have a preference for plain
> org.apache.geronimo for all the jars.
so it will be -
o.a.g - all jars
o.a.g.plugins - all plugins
o.a.g.modules - all cars ?
o.a.g.applications - all apps and
o.a.g.specs -
I also agree we do not need o.a.g.axis etc.
However if recommended maven
> usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
>
> For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> preferring the shorter name.
We might have to come back to trim the names once we have the
applications cars. I prefer o.a.g.modules (like specs). It will keep
the jars and the cars in different directories.
Should we remove configurations from the <name> too, e.g.
"geronimo configuration for performing service deployments" ?
Thanks
Anita
>
> Comments?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com