Gregory Kick wrote:
> AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! That was my scream of frustration for how I
> stopped thinking for like a week and a half!
I first thought that was your frustration for this whole discussion. Phew.
> Heh, allow me to
> explain. While thinking about the repository directory structure it
> just hit me all the sudden that the parent pom could just be moved up
> a level in terms of the groupId. This would allow for the parent and
> child to have the same name (like you wanted) and in terms of how they
> actually get deployed into the repository essentially keep the exact
> same hierarchy. For example:
>
> codemodel/
> pom.xml (for 'com.sun:codemodel' module)
> codemodel-core/
> pom.xml (for 'com.sun.codemodel:codemodel' module)
> codemodel-annotation-compiler/
> pom.xml (for 'com.sun.codemodel:codemodel-annotation-compiler' module)
>
> Essentially, the pom for com.sun:codemodel is on the same level as the
> entire com.sun.codemodel groupId, which seems to be what we wanted in
> the first place.
>
> We can sort out the actual directory names later, but thoughts on the
> artifact/groupIds?
Thank you. This looks great. Thank you for finding a middle ground. Much
appreciated.
--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi_at_sun.com