Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-14 Thread sebb
On 14 August 2011 10:38, Thomas Vandahl wrote: > On 12.08.11 08:41, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Hi, >> >> while looking through the Gump setup for JCS I realized the artifactId >> inside the POM had been changed to commons-jcs while the groupId still >> is org.apache.jcs.  Does it make sense to keep

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-14 Thread Thomas Vandahl
On 12.08.11 08:41, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Hi, > > while looking through the Gump setup for JCS I realized the artifactId > inside the POM had been changed to commons-jcs while the groupId still > is org.apache.jcs. Does it make sense to keep the old groupId when > you change the artifactId anywa

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-13 Thread sebb
On 13 August 2011 21:22, James Carman wrote: > If you change stuff around, you need to change the package name(s), > right?  Otherwise, you could have collisions on the classpath. Yes, but then everyone using the code will need to edit and recompile. So best to keep binary compatibility if at al

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-13 Thread James Carman
If you change stuff around, you need to change the package name(s), right? Otherwise, you could have collisions on the classpath. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> On 2011-08-12, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> >>> IMHO unless the main package name has t

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-12 Thread sebb
On 12 August 2011 08:14, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary > incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original > groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs). +1, otherwise users will be forced to edit and recompile - such changes

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-12 Thread Jörg Schaible
Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2011-08-12, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary >> incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original >> groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs). > > I agree with you. But if jcs changes the artif

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-12 Thread Jörg Schaible
Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary > incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original > groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs). +1 otherwise Stefan is right and we can adjust the groupId also. - Jörg

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-12 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2011-08-12, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary > incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original > groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs). I agree with you. But if jcs changes the artifactId (which has happened in trunk

Re: [jcs] groupId

2011-08-12 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
IMHO unless the main package name has to change due to binary incompatibilities in the new version I would stick to the original groupId/artifactId (ie org.apache.jcs/jcs). Emmanuel Bourg Le 12/08/2011 08:41, Stefan Bodewig a écrit : Hi, while looking through the Gump setup for JCS I realiz

[jcs] groupId

2011-08-11 Thread Stefan Bodewig
Hi, while looking through the Gump setup for JCS I realized the artifactId inside the POM had been changed to commons-jcs while the groupId still is org.apache.jcs. Does it make sense to keep the old groupId when you change the artifactId anyway? Stefan -