Gregory Kick wrote:
> Maven2 (and not Maven 1) has a mechanism for artifact relocation.
> Specifically, the relocation tag ( http://maven.apache.org/ref/
> current/maven-model/maven.html#class_relocation ) in
> <distributionManagement> handles all of the appropriate information.
Hmm, so the idea is that going forward, every time when we push a new
version, we put the POMs in the old names so that they point back to the
proper location?
But is the current situation that painful? I mean, it's not like we are
erasing the old artifacts. So the POMs out there that rely on existing
jars in the javax.xml would continue to work.
It only becomes a problem when they update the POMs to rely on a newer
version, in which case the simple solution is also to update the groupId
as well as version. That doesn't sounds like too much effort to me.
> So, I
> definitely wouldn't say that using the javax.xml.bind groupId is
> wrong, but changing it without regard for the efforts of the users
> that promoted the project by putting it into ibiblio in the first
> place isn't exactly proper either.
OK. But we've already published a fair number of versions on
javax.xml.bind and com.sun.xml.bind, so it doesn't seem like it's
possible to kill the new names either.
Hence the suggestion to use the relocation tag?
--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi_at_sun.com