Nah, this is no middle ground... this is what I should have done in
the first place. :-)
On 10/25/06, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi_at_sun.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
Gregory Kick
http://kickstyle.net/