Adoption Group "projects" in maven central

[dalibor topic]

On 23.02.2016 14:20, Chris Newland wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Chris,

thank you for raising the question! It hasn't really come up much in the 
past, as there were only two OpenJDK Projects that ended up on Maven, 
thanks to third party packagers.

So I'll try to give a longer answer, with references, and so on, in 
order to be able to refer back to it later, if necessary. ;)

> What is the opinion on having a maven central group id of org.adoptopenjdk
> for Adoption projects?

Looking at 
https://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-naming-conventions.html

"groupId will identify your project uniquely across all projects, so we 
need to enforce a naming schema. It has to follow the package name 
rules, what means that has to be at least as a domain name you control"

Given that adoptopenjdk.org is not a domain you control, using it as a 
Maven group id would seem like a bad choice to me.

> Official OpenJDK Projects (capital P) such as JMH use the maven group id
> prefix org.openjdk but perhaps it would be useful to have a "junior" repo
> for projects (lowercase p) that Adoption is "incubating" ?

I don't think that would be very useful, as that there is no separate 
"incubation" process in OpenJDK. Projects in OpenJDK are created 
following the process outlined at 
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#new-project .

In general, I don't think that trying to encourage the migration of 
existing, established open source projects into the OpenJDK community is 
a very good idea, unless there is a well-defined, obvious benefit for 
JDK Release Projects like JDK 9, such as the implementation of a new 
feature being considered for a future JDK release, with ongoing 
maintenance being expected to be undertaken within the OpenJDK Community.

If there isn't, then the amount of work necessary to get to the point 
where a new Project can be proposed for discussion typically dwarfs any 
potential benefits of being part of the OpenJDK Community for such efforts.

Even though that's very different from how other large open source 
communities work, I'd argue that it's actually a good thing, as it keeps 
the OpenJDK Community largely focused on development of the JDK.

> Reason for enquiring is that I've been asked to put JITWatch into maven
> central so people can integrate it more easily

I think that's a fine idea.

> and would lke to keep the
> association with the Adoption group if possible.

I believe that's what the Developer roles of the Maven POM are for - for 
example, looking at https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Developers you 
could provide the role 'OpenJDK Adoption Group Participant', to 
establish the link back to this Group, or even 'OpenJDK Quality Outreach 
participant' to make note of the fact that JITWatch is regularly and 
well tested with upcoming JDK releases in its POM.

> The JITWatch Java package prefix is org.adoptopenjdk.jitwatch

According to Maven POM documentation at 
https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Maven_Coordinates ,

"Note that the dot-notated groupId does not have to correspond to the 
package structure that the project contains."

So from that perspective, I think it'd be fine to pick any domain name 
that you control as your groupId.

cheers,
dalibor topic
-- 
<http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
<tel:+491737185961>

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603

Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher

<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
practices and products that help protect the environment