sebb wrote: > On 24 March 2011 00:09, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:05 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 23 March 2011 23:37, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 23 March 2011 23:14, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I think maven best practice would suggest to avoid groupId >>>>>> duplication - for pool2 we agreed to switch to o.a.c groupId. >>>>>> which problems are you speaking about? I'm asking because I would >>>>>> have missed something I don't know yet. >>>>> >>>>> I just mean that the POM should specify the groupId even if it is the >>>>> same as the parent. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I still don't understand the reason why it should do it, can you point >>>> me to some doc? >>> >>> AFAIK, there is no such document. >>> >>> But it's important for people reading the POM to know immediately what >>> the groupId is, without having to go searching for the parent. >> >> There is no need to go searching for the parent. You can just look at >> the <parent> element's groupId in the POM you're reading. > > OK, but I still think it's risky to rely on inheritance for such an > important value. > > In theory, the parent might be changed, e.g. to the Apache POM, as > used in Common Site > > Also, having an explicit value documents that the groupId is being > intentionally set for this component.
The info is redundant, but I second Sebb here, simply because in Commons not every component has necessarily the same groupId. Currently we switch from the old M1-style groupId to this one only on purpose and therefore I prefer also the explicit definition here. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
