On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *Organizations.* Regarding choice of "organization" for each module: why > > not > > use the name of the project as the organization for all of the ivy > > modules? > > That is what we do internally in our "enterprise repository". > > > > This seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what > > "organization" > > is supposed to be for. I've always thought of it as referring to the > > people > > that created the *module* (not the *artifacts*). > > > > If you don't do it that way, you eliminate the possibility of multiple > > packagers of the same stuff, which would be bad (e.g., think about how > > many > > different Linux distributions there are). > > I think I would try to follow maven 2 conventions, just for the ease of > use > for people coming from maven2, and because I think they are pretty good > when > followed. Obviously apache commons-* would be renamed since they don't > follow the convention. For java projects, I think using the main package > name of the main module in the project makes sense most of the time. I apologize for my ignorance... Two questions: 1. I know little about maven. What are the "maven 2 conventions"? 2. What happens in ivy when two different repositories in your settings publish the same organization, name, and version of a module? Thanks, -Archie -- Archie L. Cobbs
