after thinking a bit on +1 for Steve proposal
On 31 January 2017 at 08:09, Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> Agreed, it'd be the right time if we wanted to change this.
>
> I vote for 1 in case we do it.
>
> In ORM it's enough for many use cases to just add that core module,
> hence I like the more concise "hibernate-orm" id (similar to
> "hibernate-validator"). It's a bit different for OGM and HSEARCH where
> one needs core and typically another module with the NoSQL/indexing
> backend (hence I like "hibernate-ogm-core" there).
>
>
>
> 2017-01-30 17:31 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>:
> > Relatedly, I have been thinking whether we want to rename the ORM
> artifacts
> > as well since this is the best time if we wanted to do that.
> >
> > So we know we will change the groupId to `org.hibernate.orm`.
> >
> > I was thinking we might want to also either:
> >
> > 1. rename `hibernate-core` as `hibernate-orm`
> > 2. rename all the artifacts following the pattern
> `hibernate-orm-${1}`,
> > e.g. `hibernate-orm-core`, `hibernate-orm-osgi`, etc.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:26 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well let's investigate what this consistency means across projects
> first.
> >> As Sanne mentions, if it makes it building ORM more difficult then I'd
> be
> >> -1 it too. But I promise to take a peek when I get back from PTO in a
> few
> >> days. Or maybe Andrea can in the next few days as he already has
> worked on
> >> the changes to release relocation artifacts for ORM; I just do not know
> >> when he is coming back from PTO. Either way we will have looked at it
> for
> >> ORM by the end of week.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:11 AM Guillaume Smet <
> guillaume.s...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Different projects have different needs. Consistency is nice, and
> >> > certainly makes it easier to find oneself comfortably "at home" when
> >> > jumping from one project to another, but it also is inconvenient to do
> >> > things "for consistency" when one has different requirements.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't think we would have different requirements regarding the
> relocation
> >> artifacts.
> >>
> >> But if you see any issue with the approach we chose for HV, interesting
> in
> >> hearing them so that we can have the same approach for the different
> NoORM
> >> project.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Guillaume
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > hibernate-dev mailing list
> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
