Brian Fox wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org> > wrote: >> When you say consistent, what are you referring to? The fact that lang >> has done it once? >> >> It is not the Maven way to change the artifactId when a new major >> version comes out. And since we are talking about the Maven >> "coordinates" (groupId, artifactId, version) I think it is best to >> follow the standard Maven way of doing it. >> > > If the package names are changed to avoid classpath conflicts, then > changing the artifactId is not a bad idea either...maven jars are > named [artifactid].jar so this would prevent both from being on the > classpath in say a war.
Well, actually you *can* have group1:foo and group2:foo as war dependency, because the plugin will then prepend the group name to the jar in the war file. Don't know for other plugins that collect the dependencies, but Maven cannot and does not require unique artifactIds. However, it's better not to force this situation with artifacts from the same project. Therefore I am with James changing the artifactId to match the package name. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
