You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2006/07/21 20:24:44 UTC
Project groupIds
I was fixing up the DAS pom's recently and noticed that the groupId
was set to "org.apache.tuscany.das" which seemed quite sensible.
What do people think about changing the groupIds for sca and sdo to
o.a.t.sca and o.a.t.sdo respectively?
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Project groupIds
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 21, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Ken Tam wrote:
> Eddie: Yeah, I figured it was something like that based on inspection
> of the repo structure, but what confused me was how parenting
> relationships fit into this (it's also probably time for me to blow
> away big chunks of my local repo as it's accumulated a lot of stale
> cruft due to changes in the build :).
>
> So if you're parented to something with a groupId, it looks like you
> inherit that groupId but show up as a peer of your parent in the
> repo.. presumably defining your own groupId means you override what
> you get from your parent?
>
You inherit most things from your parent unless you override them -
groupId behaves just like the other properties so, yes.
> Jeremy: Makes sense re: disconnecting the parent.. have we got the
> spec jars published in a repo somewhere so folks can actually build
> only in java/sca? Or at minimum do they still need to do a build in
> specs or at the root once anyway?
>
No, we need to start doing that. It's not just the spec jars - for
example, databinding-sdo will need SDO snapshots published.
Until we do that users will need to build from the top. (which should
still build everything).
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Project groupIds
Posted by Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com>.
Eddie: Yeah, I figured it was something like that based on inspection
of the repo structure, but what confused me was how parenting
relationships fit into this (it's also probably time for me to blow
away big chunks of my local repo as it's accumulated a lot of stale
cruft due to changes in the build :).
So if you're parented to something with a groupId, it looks like you
inherit that groupId but show up as a peer of your parent in the
repo.. presumably defining your own groupId means you override what
you get from your parent?
Jeremy: Makes sense re: disconnecting the parent.. have we got the
spec jars published in a repo somewhere so folks can actually build
only in java/sca? Or at minimum do they still need to do a build in
specs or at the root once anyway?
On 7/21/06, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken--
>
> Maven basically uses the groupId as a way to hierarchically name
> artifacts in a Maven repository. So, if something has a groupId of
> "tuscany", it would show up in a Maven2 repository as:
>
> /tuscany/<artifactId>
>
> If the groupId is "org.apache.tuscany", it shows up as:
>
> /org/apache/tuscany/<artifactId>
>
> Personally, I'm a fan of containing artifacts from a project under
> nested directories like this as it makes the grouping of related
> artifacts more obvious.
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 7/21/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Ken Tam wrote:
> >
> > > So right now sca doesn't define a groupId and is parented to
> > > tuscany-project w/ groupId o.a.t..
> >
> > That is so last night ... ;-)
> >
> > In r424080 I disinherited the project from its parent (like the other
> > sdo and das poms) so that people could build sca without needed to
> > build from the root first (or doing mvn -N at the root anyway)
> >
> > > would this mean sca would continue
> > > to be parented to tuscany-project, but define a new groupId? What
> > > difference would this make? (I don't really get how maven treats this
> > > hierarchy to understand what the pros/cons are here)
> >
> > There is no significance to the heirarchy, it is just way of
> > partitioning it up. This would mean that sdo, das and sca would all
> > be peers under o.a.t rather than giving sca some perceived precedence
> > in the root.
> >
> > We already have sub-hierarchies for containers, databinding,
> > samples, ...
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Project groupIds
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>.
Ken--
Maven basically uses the groupId as a way to hierarchically name
artifacts in a Maven repository. So, if something has a groupId of
"tuscany", it would show up in a Maven2 repository as:
/tuscany/<artifactId>
If the groupId is "org.apache.tuscany", it shows up as:
/org/apache/tuscany/<artifactId>
Personally, I'm a fan of containing artifacts from a project under
nested directories like this as it makes the grouping of related
artifacts more obvious.
Eddie
On 7/21/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Ken Tam wrote:
>
> > So right now sca doesn't define a groupId and is parented to
> > tuscany-project w/ groupId o.a.t..
>
> That is so last night ... ;-)
>
> In r424080 I disinherited the project from its parent (like the other
> sdo and das poms) so that people could build sca without needed to
> build from the root first (or doing mvn -N at the root anyway)
>
> > would this mean sca would continue
> > to be parented to tuscany-project, but define a new groupId? What
> > difference would this make? (I don't really get how maven treats this
> > hierarchy to understand what the pros/cons are here)
>
> There is no significance to the heirarchy, it is just way of
> partitioning it up. This would mean that sdo, das and sca would all
> be peers under o.a.t rather than giving sca some perceived precedence
> in the root.
>
> We already have sub-hierarchies for containers, databinding,
> samples, ...
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Project groupIds
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 21, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Ken Tam wrote:
> So right now sca doesn't define a groupId and is parented to
> tuscany-project w/ groupId o.a.t..
That is so last night ... ;-)
In r424080 I disinherited the project from its parent (like the other
sdo and das poms) so that people could build sca without needed to
build from the root first (or doing mvn -N at the root anyway)
> would this mean sca would continue
> to be parented to tuscany-project, but define a new groupId? What
> difference would this make? (I don't really get how maven treats this
> hierarchy to understand what the pros/cons are here)
There is no significance to the heirarchy, it is just way of
partitioning it up. This would mean that sdo, das and sca would all
be peers under o.a.t rather than giving sca some perceived precedence
in the root.
We already have sub-hierarchies for containers, databinding,
samples, ...
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Project groupIds
Posted by Ken Tam <ke...@gmail.com>.
So right now sca doesn't define a groupId and is parented to
tuscany-project w/ groupId o.a.t.. would this mean sca would continue
to be parented to tuscany-project, but define a new groupId? What
difference would this make? (I don't really get how maven treats this
hierarchy to understand what the pros/cons are here)
On 7/21/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> I was fixing up the DAS pom's recently and noticed that the groupId
> was set to "org.apache.tuscany.das" which seemed quite sensible.
>
> What do people think about changing the groupIds for sca and sdo to
> o.a.t.sca and o.a.t.sdo respectively?
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org