On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote: Same as Sergiu, I would prefer shorter names ; but no strong feelings either. 0 Jerome

+0, using artifactid is longer, but a clear rule. And you have auto-completion and IDE, so why fear longer name ? Denis On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 15:49, Marius Dumitru Florea < mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 08:56, Florin Ciubotaru &lt;florinciu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Reviving this thread again after the release of 3.2. I'd like to get this problem fixed, so here's a proposal: https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/tree/master/xwiki-platform-core/xwi… becomes https://github.com/xwiki/platform/tree/master/core/cache/api The current strategy is to get longer and longer directory names, by copying the parent directory name and adding a suffix to it. While this keeps the current artifact ID in sync with the directory it sits in, it creates redundancy and is much too verbose. Plus, it creates the checkout problem on Windows. The proposed strategy is to remove all redundancy and instead have the artifact ID in sync with the directory structure starting from the git repository root. Still, there are a few things I'd like some feedback on: 1. Do we keep "xwiki" in the repository name or not? a) The "xwiki" part of the artifact ID is found in the organization name, so the repository name skips it: "platform", "rendering"... b) The organization name isn't going to be found on the user's filesystem, so it makes sense to keep it in the repository name: "xwiki-platform", "xwiki-rendering"... 2. What do we do with the "core+tools" split of some of the repositories? a) Keep it, which means that we'll not have 100% sync with some of the artifact ID, since "core" is not part of the artifactIds. b) Keep it and change the artifactIds of the core modules to include it c) Move the "core" modules to the root of the repository, keeping "tools" grouped under the tools subdirectory Personally, I'm: * +1 for 1a, +0 for 1b; the argument for b is not really valid, since users can change the directory name where their clone is going to be created, and most developers usually create a top level directory to hold the XWiki repositories by themselves anyway * -0 for 2a, since I'd like to have a clear and simple rule for mapping artifact IDs to directories, without having to add an "...except if the directory is named core..." exception to this rule; -0 for 2b, since I prefer not to change artifact IDs so often between versions; +1 for 2c, since it's going to bring the most important modules closer to the root. So, the one clear and simple rule to follow for naming directories and artifacts is: Assuming you checked out the XWiki repositories in a common folder called "xwiki", then the artifactId of any pom.xml file is the same as the path from the top "xwiki" directory to the current directory, with dashes between the names. -- http://purl.org/net/sergiu

On 10/14/2011 01:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: I looked both at commons-core and platform-core and, while the configuration in there isn't needed for tools, I think that it's not going to break tools either. Indeed, I forgot about this. I prefer 3a as well, and I'm close to -1 for 3b. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: +1, I'm perfectly fine with the current strategy but I understand we can't keep something that makes it a pain to contribute for Windows users. I think 1a is better, I doubt much people clone all the git repositories whatever where they core from in the same place and they probably will group them in a xwiki folder anyway so if since the point of this proposal is to reduce names by removing useless information we should definitely remove the organization part. The way you exposed your proposal 2c seems the best choice to me too. -- Thomas Mortagne