How about unpublished instead of private?
On 1/19/07, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>
> > Seems fairly logical, but Subversion allows us to move things around
> > if it needs to be changed again.
>
> True, just trying not to do it too often to avoid upsetting local
> Eclipse workspaces.
>
>
> > I am a little confused by the "private" in the names, though. Maybe I
> > just don't understand what you were trying to do, but the term seems
> > to imply non-open source to me, which of course is not correct.
>
> Interesting, of course nothing like that was implied. "private" here
> means that the module at deployment time will be a part of another
> aggregated module. Such module should not be published as a
> standalone module in a public repository and should not be imported
> by Cayenne users directly. Just like a "private" variable in Java.
> Again, "private" == "do not publish in the repo".
>
> But then, I am not sure what Maven recommended practices are in this
> respect. This is totally my invention coming of a need to provide
> user-friendly modules (cayenne-client, cayenne-server) - the idea
> that breaks neat and clean Maven picture of the world :-)
>
> Andrus
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jan 19 2007 - 11:42:26 EST