-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:18:08 +0100
From: Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: svn commit: r367714 - in /cocoon/trunk/cocoon-template: ./
pom.xml src/ src/main/ src/test/
Daniel Fagerstrom schrieb:
Jorg Heymans skrev:
Giacomo Pati wrote:
...
Each block should have the same groupId yes. Should we make it
o.a.c.blocks ? (in analogy with [1])
Everything will be a block, the core included, in analogy with [2]. So
it would be redundant to introduce an extra level in the groupId.
Hmm, don't we need some "bootstrapping", for example the cocoon servlet
or the cli main class etc? I think these are not really blocks. Even if
they are from an implementation pov, they are not from a functionality
pov. So personally, I would distinguish between blocks and
"bootstrapping" which could be core.
Should this distinction be on the groupId?
Isn't the groupId just saying that all stuff in it belongs to the same
project?
- --
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDxNzjLNdJvZjjVZARAu59AJsFb2e/fmbg+/AuTfuAMyVq7+VF3ACg6v8V
GNg4i4QG4i+kTFMUofIH5Ik=
=G6Eq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
