[jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml
- From: Martin Scott Nicklous <
- Subject: [jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:25:06 +0200
The JSR 286 API is hosted on Apache at:
the pom from that repo contains:
<name>Java Portlet Specification V2.0</name>
<description>The Java Portlet API version 2.0 developed by the Java
Community Process JSR-286 Expert Group.</description>
I modified the pom to remove the parent reference to make it build
stand-alone and changed the artifact ID to refer to version 3.0.
Since v3.0 will be hosted on Apache as well, I don't think we want to
change the groupID to javax.portlet. We can talk about the artifactID and
version. The following might be better:
<name>Java Portlet Specification V3.0</name>
<description>The Java Portlet API version 3.0 developed by the Java
Community Process JSR-362 Expert Group.</description>
opinions / ideas?
wrote on 07.08.2013 18:47:07:
> From: Werner Keil
> Date: 07.08.13 18:47
> Subject: [jsr362-experts:] Re: pom.xml
> Most importantly, shouldn't the POM be consistent with Portlet 1.0
> and 2.0 like this
> <name>Portlet 3.0 API</name>
> rather than
> 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.
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Werner Keil
> 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.