-
1. maven artifactIds and resulting jars
kcbabo Feb 18, 2011 8:00 PM (in response to dward)I agree that the jars should be prefixed with switchyard, so we should definitely do that. In terms of the artifactId, I'm kind of on the fence. On the one hand, the generated jar can be anything we want in maven - it doesn't have to be the artifactId alone. On the other hand, having a strong affinity between jar name and module name makes it easier to track down the module for a given jar. I guess I tilt more towards changing artifactId as well. Let's see what other people have to say and make a decision before we close out M1.
-
2. Re: maven artifactIds and resulting jars
tcunning Feb 19, 2011 8:48 AM (in response to kcbabo)It may be redundant (having switchyard in the groupId and artifactId), but changing the artifactId is more straightforward than using finalName everywhere to fix everything up.
-
3. maven artifactIds and resulting jars
dward Feb 21, 2011 10:46 AM (in response to tcunning)We're going to move forward with this change. I will do it as part of: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SWITCHYARD-104