You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2006/09/28 19:49:47 UTC

Re: svn commit: r450779 - in /incubator/openejb/trunk/openejb3: assembly/pom.xml container/pom.xml examples/pom.xml openejb-itests/pom.xml pom.xml server/pom.xml

On Sep 28, 2006, at 2:53 AM, jlaskowski@apache.org wrote:

> Author: jlaskowski
> Date: Thu Sep 28 02:53:04 2006
> New Revision: 450779
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=450779
> Log:
>  o Rename openejb-parent id to openejb
>  o Add/change information in the parent pom
>

I'd be happy with anything other than 'openejb' for a root pom  
artifactId.  Simply because if we use it, we no longer have the  
option to create some sort of user-land deliverable with that name.   
Maybe an openejb-N.N.jar and openejb-N.N.pom or something along those  
lines.

What do you think?

-David

Re: svn commit: r450779 - in /incubator/openejb/trunk/openejb3: assembly/pom.xml container/pom.xml examples/pom.xml openejb-itests/pom.xml pom.xml server/pom.xml

Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Sep 28, 2006, at 6:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:

>> I don't really know. It seemed very compeling to named it openejb.
>> XBean, OpenJPA did this too. Even Geronimo has its parent as  
>> geronimo.
>
> Don't know why those projects didn't choose to follow Maven  
> convention like we did.  Anything the Maven guys touch has a foo- 
> parent pom (Maven, Continuum, Mojo, Plexus, etc.).

Because we didn't know any better :(

I'll bring up on the xbean list changing it.

Thanks,

-dain

Re: svn commit: r450779 - in /incubator/openejb/trunk/openejb3: assembly/pom.xml container/pom.xml examples/pom.xml openejb-itests/pom.xml pom.xml server/pom.xml

Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 28, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:

> On 9/28/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd be happy with anything other than 'openejb' for a root pom
>> artifactId.  Simply because if we use it, we no longer have the
>> option to create some sort of user-land deliverable with that name.
>> Maybe an openejb-N.N.jar and openejb-N.N.pom or something along those
>> lines.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I don't really know. It seemed very compeling to named it openejb.
> XBean, OpenJPA did this too. Even Geronimo has its parent as geronimo.

Don't know why those projects didn't choose to follow Maven  
convention like we did.  Anything the Maven guys touch has a foo- 
parent pom (Maven, Continuum, Mojo, Plexus, etc.).

> I'm not a strong proponent of using openejb, but it looked the best
> available choice.

Cool.  Let's change it back then and keep 'openejb' on reserve for  
something user-consumable.

-David

> Jacek
>
> -- 
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>

Re: svn commit: r450779 - in /incubator/openejb/trunk/openejb3: assembly/pom.xml container/pom.xml examples/pom.xml openejb-itests/pom.xml pom.xml server/pom.xml

Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 9/28/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:

> I'd be happy with anything other than 'openejb' for a root pom
> artifactId.  Simply because if we use it, we no longer have the
> option to create some sort of user-land deliverable with that name.
> Maybe an openejb-N.N.jar and openejb-N.N.pom or something along those
> lines.
>
> What do you think?

I don't really know. It seemed very compeling to named it openejb.
XBean, OpenJPA did this too. Even Geronimo has its parent as geronimo.
I'm not a strong proponent of using openejb, but it looked the best
available choice.

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl