why the 3 and 4 in the id? isn't that what the version number should contain? org.jboss.jbpm would be sufficient I guess.
If you look at
http://snapshots.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/jbpm/ it is already difficult to see which artefacts belong to jbpm3 vs. jbpm4
Using the 3 and 4 in the groupid could make it easier for people browsing the repo online.
But, yes it is not in line with the maven versioning philosophy, I am also happy to have a single groupid for both 3 and 4
org.jboss.jbpm is a not good for me.
i see two options for the group id: jbpm or org.jbpm
my preference goes out to the shorter jbpm as there is no convention to use domain names for group id. but i'll go with the majority for this.
in the meantime, i am convinced that it is better to put all the modules and artifacts for both jBPM 3 and jBPM 4 into a single group.
if you disagree, please respond quickly or forever hold your silence as we need a decision soon. the jBPM 3.3.0 is about to be released. monday the latest we will decide on this.
please add your vote here to use jbpm or org.jbpm.
+1 for jbpm as opposed to org.jbpm if there is no convention or other that pushes us towards the use of domain names.
thomas pointed out that org.jbpm already exists. also we can have the two codebases (3 and 4) generate artifacts in the same group/artifact. e.g. the jbpm-jpdl releases in version 4 can just end up in this list : http://repository.jboss.com/maven2/org/jbpm/jbpm-jpdl/
so i changed my opinion that it's better to go for org.jbpm instead of going for just jbpm
I don't think it is a good idea to mix jbpm3 artefacts with jbpm4 artefacts in the same group
so if we have some distinction between the jbpm 3 and jbpm 4 artifacts, that would be good
we could also do org.jbpm.3 and org.jbpm.4
to prevent endless discussions on this detail, we'll collect opinions on the forum and thomas will decide on monday (as long as it starts with org.jbpm)
We conclude this issue to use
I've modified the groupid accordingly