Yes this is true... but if I have to have a custom build of log4j that is the price I have to pay... the exact same could be said for different versions of log4j...
It is no different that specifying my own version (e.g. 1.2.14-onedash-01) The advantage witch specifying my own version is that I can use dependency management to ensure it is the version used.... the disadvantage is that I do not have permission put publish to the log4j gid, so if I need to share this project with others I have problems... in any case, if I am using a separate gid, I can use the enforcer plugin to ban the regular log4j -Stephen 2009/3/23 Merv Green <[email protected]> > I was thinking of new projects, but the log4j example works. > > If you do not rename the packages, Maven might cleverly mix new classes > from your log4j in with classes from the original log4j in some hapless > artifact that depends on both. This could cause bugs of nightmarish > difficulty to track. > > > Stephen Connolly wrote: > >> No. >> >> e.g. >> >> (I own one-dash.com) >> >> I might roll a custom version of log4j... >> >> I would deploy this as >> >> groupId=com.one-dash >> artifactId=log4j >> version=1.2.14 >> >> Why should I have to change the package names? >> >> 2009/3/20 Merv Green <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> Is it reasonable to insist that a project's Java package name matches >>> ${project.groupId}.${project.artifactId}, with dashes converted to >>> underscores, etc? >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
