Appology to previous email! Notes was playing up on me while editing it
half way!
Yes, you are right. I really meant that it doesn't have to be unique
across groupId but within each groupId it has to be unique.
The approach I have now taken with groupId and artifactId is as follows,
thisproject (mycompany:thisproject)
+- common (mycompany.thisproject:common)
+- core (mycompany.thisproject.common:core)
+- webapp (mycompany.thisproject.common:webapp)
+- batch (mycompany.thisproject.common:batch)
+- customer (mycompany.thisproject:customer)
+- core (mycompany.thisproject.customer:core)
+- webapp (mycompany.thisproject.customer:webapp)
+- batch (mycompany.thisproject.customer:batch)
Customer and Common are tightly related but Customer webapp and Customer
batch ismore tightly related to Customer, hence I have a more specific
groupId for Customer apps. As you can see, if I already use following
coordinate, mycompany.thisproject.customer:webapp, why would I need to use
the following form of coordinate?
mycompany.thisproject.customer:customer-webapp or
mycompany.thisproject.customer:thisproject-customer-webapp ?
Regards,
rOnn c.
Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
05/17/2007 08:31 AM
Please respond to
"Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
To
Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
cc
Subject
Re: Specifying IntelliJ module name with maven-idea-plugin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Arik,
>
> Yes, I have been using the prefix for alittle while but found that it is
a
> silly way to get around the problem given that maven coordinate system
is
>
> groupId:artifactId:version (http://maven.apache.org/pom.html)
>
> artifactId does not need to be unique and it is contextual to groupId.
It
> is silly to keep appending what is essentailly a groupId to the
> artifactId.
Well, I'd have to answer yes and no to that. The artifactId must be
unique within the context of the groupId. So if we take the example that
you gave (see below) we would, using the syntax "groupId:artifactId",
have either
1.
project:common-webapp
project:customer-webapp
or
2.
project-common:webapp
project-customer:webapp
If common and customer are tightly related they should have the same
groupId, meaning 1. above. And with that you have two unique
artifactIds: "common-webapp" and "customer-webapp". Problem solved.
>
> Also what if there are more nested modules, prefixing artifactId would
> means that the prefix grows as you go deeper. I definitely find that it
is
> harder to maitain the convention and harder still to enforce that
> convention in a larger team environment.
>
> BTW: I really think that the default finalName for the artifact should
> have been a combination of groupId and artifactId. I think that is the
> main motivation for users to prefix thir artifactId with project name.
>
>
> Regards,
> rOnn c.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Arik Kfir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 05/15/2007 05:49 PM
> Please respond to
> "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
>
>
> To
> "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: Specifying IntelliJ module name with maven-idea-plugin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I always prefix my artifactId(s) with a common prefix - for that reason;
> e.g.
> "myproject-core", "myproject-commons", "myproject-webapp",
> "myproject-webapp-jsf", "myproject-webapp-struts", and so on. It
lengthens
> the names, but makes everything clear (and I don't need to use the
> 'finalName' property too...)
>
>
> On 5/15/07, Trygve Laugstøl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I've notice that when using maven-idea-plugin, the module name that is
>>> generated is based solely on artifact id.
>>>
>>> Is there a particular reason for this? Why wouldn't it use project
> name
>>> instead?
>>>
>>> The reason I'm asking this is that we have three maven projects with
>>> following structure,
>>>
>>> project/
>>> +- common/webapp/
>>> +- customer/webapp/
>>>
>>> Where artifact names are simply the name of the directory (e.g.,
>> webapp),
>>> and I use final-name as ${groupId}.${artifactId}-${version} to control
>> the
>>> uniqueness of the actual artifacts file name that get generated.
>>>
>>> Unfortunatly, with current maven-idea-plugin this results in a module
>>> naming conflicting within IntelliJ. I think at the very least there
>> should
>>> be a way to specify generated IntelliJ module's name, using pom's
>> project
>>> name seems like a good idea to me.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any thought on this?
>> The artifact id is normally unique enough, but your idea is still
useful
>> so please file an issue in JIRA[1].
>>
>> [1]: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MIDEA
>>
>> --
>> Trygve
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
> ######################################################################
> DISCLAIMER:
> This email and any attachment may contain confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient you are not authorized to copy
> or disclose all or any part of it without the prior written consent
> of Toyota.
>
> Opinions expressed in this email and any attachments are those of the
> sender and not necessarily the opinions of Toyota.
> Please scan this email and any attachment(s) for viruses.
> Toyota does not accept any responsibility for problems caused by
> viruses, whether it is Toyota's fault or not.
> ######################################################################
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
######################################################################
DISCLAIMER:
This email and any attachment may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient you are not authorized to copy
or disclose all or any part of it without the prior written consent
of Toyota.
Opinions expressed in this email and any attachments are those of the
sender and not necessarily the opinions of Toyota.
Please scan this email and any attachment(s) for viruses.
Toyota does not accept any responsibility for problems caused by
viruses, whether it is Toyota's fault or not.
######################################################################
