Adoption Group 'projects' in maven central

[Chris Newland]

fyi, JITWatch is now in Maven Central:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jitwatch/a7Ke476ZjuI

  <dependencies>
    <dependency>
      <groupId>com.chrisnewland</groupId>
      <artifactId>jitwatch</artifactId>
      <version>1.0.0</version>
    </dependency>
  </dependencies>

Cheers,

Chris

On Fri, February 26, 2016 11:42, Chris Newland wrote:
> Thank you both for the feedback.
>
>
> I'm in agreement with Dalibor's points - I'll use a
> com.chrisnewland.jitwatch maven group ID but maintain the link to Adoption
>  via the existing java package structure and maven roles.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Wed, February 24, 2016 20:31, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>
>> Hi Dalibor,
>>
>>
>>
>> I've got some extra clarification on this, inline.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 February 2016 at 16:38, dalibor topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We did own this and let it lapse but I'm hoping to get it back soon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So Jitwatch could be seen as a valuable tool within the code tools
>> Project.  I know that many of the Hotspot engineers use it (much like
>> they use JMH).  Perhaps Chris can discuss that with those groups though.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
>