Excuse a non-native english speaker, should these be treated the same or differently? databinding datamapping datastore
Den fre 21 mars 2025 kl 16:38 skrev James Daugherty <jdaughe...@jdresources.net.invalid>: > I've updated the pull request for the following: > > artifactId: grails-gradle-console -> grails-console > artifactId: grails-gradle-model changed package from model -> gradle > artifactId: grails-security-spring -> grails-spring-security > artifactId: grails-rest-responder -> grails-rest-transforms > groupId: event -> events > groupId: view -> views > > This assumes a plural form to match existing grails convention in package > names & groupids. > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:11 AM James Daugherty < > jdaughe...@jdresources.net> > wrote: > > > Thank you. I'd rather we hyphenate all words in the artifact id. It's > > easier to read. Also, we got rid of the additional prefixes so we'd only > > ever have the format `grails-X`. If we had prefixes to group them > > together, I'd agree, but since we don't, why not make it easier to read? > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:02 AM Mattias Reichel < > > mattias.reic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > Did you mean to say artifact ids instead of groupIds? > >> > >> Yes, sorry for the confusion, I meant artifactIds. > >> > >> Den fre 21 mars 2025 kl 15:55 skrev James Daugherty > >> <jdaughe...@jdresources.net.invalid>: > >> > >> > 1. Did you mean to say artifact ids instead of groupIds? > >> > 2. We should decide on noun vs plural forms. I'm personally a fan of > >> the > >> > noun approach. What are other people's thoughts? > >> > 3. I named it model because all that library does is expose the > >> classpath. > >> > I could see it being used for other purposes. I'm fine moving it to > >> > .gradle though. > >> > > >> > I think everyone has mentioned this, but I guess we should change it > >> back > >> > to "spring-security" instead of "security-spring" based on Gianluca's > >> > follow-up comments & James F's. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 4:08 AM Mattias Reichel < > >> mattias.reic...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > We are getting there! > >> > > > >> > > A couple of more thoughts and suggestions on the last iteration ( > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/jdaugherty/grails-core/blob/3b4da92e339b7b688011e4a8ffc3c2aaea723680/RENAME.md?plain=1 > >> > > ): > >> > > > >> > > 1. As we are working with groupings, I think we should consider > >> > collapsing > >> > > some group parts in the groupIds as they really are the same group > >> part > >> > and > >> > > not groups of their own: > >> > > spring-boot -> springboot > >> > > url-mappings -> urlmappings > >> > > data-mapping -> datamapping > >> > > testing-support -> testingsupport > >> > > domain-class -> domainclass > >> > > > >> > > 2. We are using the singular form of the groups (that are nouns) for > >> > every > >> > > groupId except codecs and profiles. Should we be consistent here: > >> > > org.apache.grails.codecs:grails-codecs-core -> > >> > > org.apache.grails.codec:grails-codecs-core > >> > > org.apache.grails.profiles:web -> org.apache.grails.profile:web > >> > > > >> > > Another way would be to do the plural form everywhere: > >> > > org.apache.grails.event -> org.apache.grails.events > >> > > org.apache.grails.view -> org.apache.grails.views > >> > > > >> > > 3. The org.apache.grails.model groupId feels a bit strange to me as > >> it is > >> > > very generic. > >> > > org.apache.grails.model:grails-gradle-model -> > >> > > org.apache.grails.gradle:grails-gradle-model > >> > > > >> > > /Mattias > >> > > > >> > > Den fre 21 mars 2025 kl 07:51 skrev Gianluca Sartori < > >> > g.sart...@gmail.com > >> > > >: > >> > > > >> > > > Okay, my proposal was based on the meaning of “security” as a > group > >> > > rather > >> > > > than referencing to a specific library (remaining open to other > >> > security > >> > > > libraries) but I can see your concerns. > >> > > > > >> > > > It may be better not to reverse the spring security name. > >> > > > > >> > > > It could be “grails-security-spring-security” but I’m not sure I > >> like > >> > it > >> > > > that much. > >> > > > > >> > > > Gianluca > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 00:17, James Fredley < > >> jamesfred...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > I reviewed the > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/jdaugherty/grails-core/blob/3b4da92e339b7b688011e4a8ffc3c2aaea723680/RENAME.md?plain=1 > >> > > > > iteration and put my approval on the PR. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I am still a little concerned with the artifacts being > >> > security-spring > >> > > > and > >> > > > > the project name being spring-security. Matching the upstream > >> project > >> > > > seems > >> > > > > like the best idea > >> > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On 2025/03/20 17:18:45 James Daugherty wrote: > >> > > > > > I tried to update the PR description to summarize some of the > >> > > > highlights > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > this thread. If I missed anything, please speak up. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I also realized the grails-console had a subpackage, so I > >> removed > >> > > that > >> > > > > > subpackage for consistency. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/grails-core/pull/14080 > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -James > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:58 PM James Daugherty < > >> > > > > jdaughe...@jdresources.net> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > @Gianluca, were you ok with the latest draft? > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/grails-core/pull/14080 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:56 PM Gianluca Sartori < > >> > > > g.sart...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Okay sounds good > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Gianluca > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 17:52, James Daugherty > >> > > > > > >> <jdaughe...@jdresources.net.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > I don't think we should rename any repositories until > >> builds > >> > are > >> > > > > fully > >> > > > > > >> > working. It will delay the 7 release process otherwise. > >> The > >> > > goal > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > >> this > >> > > > > > >> > discussion is specific to the groupid / artifactid. > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:46 PM Gianluca Sartori < > >> > > > > g.sart...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > Yes, I am just talking about the repository name, not > the > >> > > > groupId > >> > > > > or > >> > > > > > >> > > artifactId. > >> > > > > > >> > > The repository name can be any name available in our > Git > >> > > > > namespace, it > >> > > > > > >> > will > >> > > > > > >> > > not conflict or influence any other repository name on > >> any > >> > > other > >> > > > > > >> GitHub > >> > > > > > >> > > namespace. > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Gianluca > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
