bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Package naming of incoming codebase
Date Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:34:41 GMT
I was thinking about collapsing everything into one artifact.  The
current code structure is because agimatec-validation contains the core
engine/metadata handler, which was shared with pre-JSR303 code that
Agimatec had, while the agimatec-jsr303 was the add-on layer to fulfill
the spec requirements.

For now, lets rename the artifacts as:
agimatec-validation --> bval-core
agimatec-jsr303 --> bval-jsr303

We'll use another JIRA to combine everything or BVAL-1 to split things
into an impl and api jar.....

I'll try to take a look at the test failures tonight or tomorrow, but go
ahead with the commit and we'll figure it out from there.


On 3/27/10 1:14 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Kevan,
> thank you very much for your feedbacks!!! I'm going to commit the code
> at this status, I just need to know: if org.apache.bval fits well in
> groupId, which artifacts Id do we have to use? Do you have any
> suggestion?
> Thanks a lot!!!
> Simo
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kevan Miller <> wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> Hi all mates,
>>> I'm going to complete the issue but I need you help for 2 small issues I have:
>>> 1) should I move also groupId and artifactId in poms?
>> Yes, I definitely think so.
>>> 2) in the jsr-303 module I've 28 failures over 81 tests, I attached on
>>> this email the .txt junit reports, is anyone able to explain me why
>>> they fail so I can fix them?
>> Sorry, I really haven't looked at the code at all, yet... IMO, it's absolutely fine
for you to commit the code in it's current form. At this stage, I don't think anyone would
object that the code has test failures. Plus committing will allow others to help out... No
reason for this to be solely on your shoulders.
>> Thanks for doing this!
>> --kevan

View raw message