Home » Eclipse Projects » Gemini » Gemini artifactId naming inconsistent between sub-projects
| Gemini artifactId naming inconsistent between sub-projects [message #550531] |
Fri, 30 July 2010 16:39  |
 Werner Keil
Messages: 1087
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi,
While discussing naming conventions for Maven artifactId and groupId with a
fellow Eclipse committer to another project, we found Gemini is using 2
different patterns.
Here the difference in short again, to save you reading through all quotes
which I still include for those interested:
<groupId>org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint</groupId>
<artifactId>gemini-blueprint-io</artifactId>
and
<artifactId>gemini-blueprint</artifactId>
for the parent POM.
Gemini (Naming) uses the OSGi bundle style like this:
<groupId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming</groupId>
<artifactId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming.impl.bundle-Incubation </artifactId>
and
<artifactId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming</artifactId>
Mike suggested to bring it to your attention and try synchronize that.
As interested party and committer to other OSGi/Tycho/Maven enabled projects
I appreciate an outcome so we can apply this "blueprint" to our projects,
too.
TIA,
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Keith" <michael.keith@oracle.com>
To: "Werner Keil" <werner.keil@gmx.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Gemini Blueprint 1.0.0.M1 ships
> Hi Werner,
>
> You are referencing POM files from two different Gemini subprojects:
> Gemini Blueprint and Gemini Naming.
> These have two different project leads, and they likely just didn't
> coordinate the naming rules with each other. Perhaps you could post a
> new thread in the Gemini forum to point this out?
>
> Thanks,
> -Mike
>
> On 7/28/2010 2:39 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>
>> The difference is mainly how the projects use Maven's artifactId.
>>
>> The 1.0.0.M2 release of Gemini Blueprint (one of the sub-projects it
>> seems) proposes this as in previously attached POM:
>> <groupId>org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint</groupId>
>> <artifactId>gemini-blueprint-io</artifactId>
>> and
>> <artifactId>gemini-blueprint</artifactId>
>> for the parent POM.
>>
>> Gemini itself uses the OSGi bundle style like this:
>> <groupId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming</groupId>
>> <artifactId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming.impl.bundle-Incubation </artifactId>
>> and
>> <artifactId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming</artifactId>
>>
>> for the parent POM.
>>
>> Not a huge deal, but if Gemini Blueprint is supposed to be applied by
>> users and developers, why is it different from what Gemini itself uses?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Werner
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Keith"
>> <michael.keith@oracle.com>
>> To: "Werner Keil" <werner.keil@gmx.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fw: Gemini Blueprint 1.0.0.M1 ships
>>
>>
>>> Hi Werner,
>>>
>>> I am the overall Gemini lead and Costin Leau from VMware is the lead
>>> of the Gemini Blueprint subproject.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what you mean when you say that "the blueprint differs
>>> from the actual Gemini code". Which blueprint are you referring to?
>>> What is going in a different direction from what else?
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 1:34 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure, if you're the overall Gemini lead or if it is Adrian
>>>> or someone else at vmware?
>>>> (I forgot his name, but yesterday a new colleague, I think Adam
>>>> attended the EC call, making SE/EE look rather good again ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Do you know why the blueprint differs from the actual Gemini code
>>>> especially with regards to how groupId and artifactId are formatted?
>>>> Is there a method behind it, or just different teams and their leads
>>>> going in slightly different directions (i.E. Oracle and vmware ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>> Werner
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werner Keil" <werner.keil@gmx.net>
>>>> Newsgroups: eclipse.gemini,eclipse.tycho
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:36 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Gemini Blueprint 1.0.0.M1 ships
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the reason a POM from the Blueprint (hopefully outdated ;-)
>>>>> promotes
>>>>> one form of Maven artifactId, while Gemini itself uses another?!
>>>>>
>>>>> I lead an Eclipse project (UOMo) where the only non-Eclipse
>>>>> dependency is
>>>>> also shaped by a group of experts around unitsofmeasure.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion about the final artifact name lead us to your
>>>>> Blueprints
>>>>> which as of M2 still use a "dash" style naming of artifactId:
>>>>> <groupId>org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint</groupId>
>>>>> <artifactId>gemini-blueprint-io</artifactId>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gemini itself uses the OSGi bundle style like this:
>>>>> <groupId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming</groupId>
>>>>> <artifactId>org.eclipse.gemini.naming.impl.bundle-Incubation </artifactId>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any reasons why this is inconsistent?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully Tycho may also shed some light on this and what it
>>>>> promotes as
>>>>> best practice for artifactId naming, especially for OSGi-enabled
>>>>> JAR-bundles?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Werner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 23:28:27 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03203 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
