The 2 solution seems more logical to me, can you see a drawback ?
> Another thing I will probalby change in the mavenizer is not to
generate a pom-typed compiler artifact, but to have the jar containing
the compiler become the root and I add all the dependencies tot hat.
Do you mean its pom.xml in a subfolder of the META-INF directory ? that's just
the way it should be IMO.
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: How to handle the groupIds of the default and falcon compiler
> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 16:09:50 +0000
>
> Hi guys,
>
> sorry for all the flexmojos & maven spam recently, but I'm trying to get some
> things finished ;-|
>
> Usually we had all the compiler artifacts deployed with the group-id
> "org.apache.flex:compiler" and all oft he artifacts it needed were in
> "org.apache.flex.compiler:xxx" (The root artifact had a groupId without the
> "compiler" at the end)
>
> Now at first I had Falcon generated to the same group id, but had the
> root-object be "org.apache.flex.compiler:falcon-compiler"
>
> To me it sort of doesn't feel quite right and I would like to sort this out.
> So I have different suggestions:
>
>
> 1. I leave the old structure unchanged, and deploy falcon to
> "org.apache.flex:falcon-compiler" and all it's dependencies to
> "org.apache.flex.falcon-compiler:xxx"
>
> 2. I change the pom-artifact for the old compiler to
> "org.apache.flex.compiler:compiler", leave the rest unchanged and deploy
> falcon to "org.apache.flex.compiler:falcon-compiler"
>
> 3. Some other idea one of you might come up with :)
>
> So what do you think?
>
> Another thing I will probalby change in the mavenizer is not to generate a
> pom-typed compiler artifact, but to have the jar containing the compiler
> become the root and I add all the dependencies tot hat.
>
> So I hope I didn't confuse you ... don't want to decide stuff like this on my
> own.
>
> Chris
