Project artifact naming convention
<ul><li>Project groupId will be "jboss" for all projects. </li>
<li>artifactId will be the name of the project or subproject</li>
We talked yesterday about using the "jboss" prefix for the project names. For example jboss/jboss-common-core vs. jboss/common-core. After thinking about it a little bit, I think that Scott is right that we really don't need the jboss prefix on the maven artifactId. Since the jars will always be downloaded into their appropriate subdirectory, there really isn't an issue of possible name conflicts with other organizations.
The jboss prefix on the artifactId seems redundant. The drawback is that there are already a lot of projects in the repository with jboss prefix in the name so it will take a little bit of work to change them.
It may be redundent in terms of the repo structure, but you said this also determines the artifact name. common-core.jar vs jboss-common-core.jar is a good use of the jboss prefix, so that redundency is a good thing. I suppose it could be reintroduced by overriding the artifact name via a combination of groupId and artifactId.
I couldn't think of a situation where you would be looking at the jar outside of its jboss directory. If other projects are using jboss common for example, they could specify the dependency in their pom.xml and the jar gets downloaded into their local repository, and they never see it.
If we are packaging up jboss common with the app server for example, there is a maven assembly plugin that can be used to package a project with its dependencies, so you would never have to worry about the actual name of the jboss common jar file.
One situation where it probably would be useful to have the full name jboss-common-core.jar is for external non-maven projects that want to just extract the jars into their lib directory. But for this case we could produce a different name for the file (including the groupId) for non maven distribution.