Skip to main content

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

  • From: Werner Keil < >
  • To:
  • Subject: [jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml
  • Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 18:47:07 +0200

Most importantly, shouldn't the POM be consistent with Portlet 1.0 and 2.0
like this

<groupId>javax.portlet</groupId>
<modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
<artifactId>portlet-api</artifactId>
<version>3.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
<packaging>jar</packaging>
<name>Portlet 3.0 API</name>

rather than

 <groupId>org.apache.portals</groupId>
  <artifactId>portlet-api_3.0_spec</artifactId>
  <version>0.1-SNAPSHOT</version>



If we started with 0.1-SNAPSHOT, that sounded fair, eventually there should
be a 3,0 in the version number and I'd expect the javax.portlet group and
portlet-api artifactId must remain as they were.

org.apache.portals could be group of a <parent> POM if such exists, but not
replace javax.portlet I'd say.

Werner

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Werner Keil 
< >
 wrote:

> If we depend on everything that's in there, I'd say so, but as mentioned,
> a few of the ingredients themselves do NOT require EE 7 or SE 7 as a
> minimum dependency, hence they also deviate while the "entire system"
> doesn't.
>


[jsr362-experts:] pom.xml

David S Taylor 08/03/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Martin Scott Nicklous 08/04/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Edward Burns 08/07/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Werner Keil 08/07/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Neil Griffin 08/07/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Werner Keil 08/07/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Werner Keil 08/07/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Martin Scott Nicklous 08/08/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Werner Keil 08/08/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Martin Scott Nicklous 08/08/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Werner Keil 08/08/2013

[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml

Martin Scott Nicklous 08/08/2013
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close