This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 179571 - ArtifactId vs. Project name in Project list
Summary: ArtifactId vs. Project name in Project list
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 194773
Alias: None
Product: projects
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Maven (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 normal with 2 votes (vote)
Assignee: Jesse Glick
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-01-15 15:02 UTC by mkovtun
Modified: 2013-03-20 10:56 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Exception Reporter:

artifactid (31.56 KB, image/png)
2012-08-22 06:29 UTC, mihai

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description mkovtun 2010-01-15 15:02:58 UTC
Starting version 6.7, NetBeans shows in Project list "Project name" instead of "ArtifactId" (for Maven projects).

Although many people may consider it as a valuable option, for me it is rather annoying than useful:
* ArtifactId is for the developer himself, while Project name is for the end user. For the developer, ordering projects by Project name is unnatural, and adds time to find project in the list.
* Project names are long, which makes project list too wide. Working with project list with horizontal scroll bar is VERY inconvenient.

I believe that having option to display ArtifactIds in project list would be appreciated by many developers.
Comment 1 Antonin Nebuzelsky 2010-07-30 15:18:05 UTC
Reassigning to default owner.
Comment 2 Jesse Glick 2010-12-03 18:28:01 UTC
<name> is whatever you as a developer want to see. <artifactId> is a short token with a limited syntax.
Comment 3 mkovtun 2010-12-07 20:18:46 UTC
I as developer want to see "ArtifactId".

Artifact id is what I use all the time -- it is name of directory, name of jar file, etc.
Comment 4 Jesse Glick 2010-12-07 20:38:41 UTC
So, set <name> to be the same as <artifactId>.
Comment 5 mkovtun 2010-12-07 20:48:13 UTC
Setting <name> equal to <artifactId> is not a good option.

When published in Maven repository, <name> has to provide a short description of the artifact.
Comment 6 Jesse Glick 2010-12-07 21:02:38 UTC
But <name> does not need to be much besides <artifactId> with - replaced with space and some capitalization. <description> should be used for anything else.

BTW you can always see the artifactId in the tooltip on the project node.
Comment 7 mkovtun 2010-12-07 23:15:15 UTC
A simple example why <artifactId>, <name>, and <description> should be different:

artifactId: Maven

name: A Java-based software project management and comprehension tool.

description: Apache Maven is a software project management and comprehension tool. Based on the concept of a project object model (POM), Maven can manage a project's build, reporting and documentation from a central piece of information.

Regarding tooltips: I can see artifact ids in the project list. What I do not like is to see long project names in the project list.

Note also that artifact ids must be unique (within groupId), while project names legally may coincide.

BTW: in "Open project" dialog I see artifact ids -- not project names. It is another source of confusion.

(Please!!! Do not replace artifact ids by project names in "Open project" dialog!!!)
Comment 8 Jesse Glick 2010-12-08 01:39:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> artifactId: Maven
> name: A Java-based software project management and comprehension tool.

Is this a real example? Maven sources use e.g.

"Apache Maven"
"Maven Core"
"Maven Distribution"

etc., which are short and distinctive. The half-sentence given above is not a "name", it is a (relatively short) description.

> artifact ids must be unique (within groupId)

And they may be the same across groupId's, quite possible in a big reactor. <artifactId>pom</artifactId> is not uncommon.

> project names legally may coincide.

So differentiate them. (Which you can freely do without affecting compatibility, unlike artifactId's.) There is anyway no guarantee that project display names are unique; consider opening two copies of the same project from different branches.

Also note that Maven CLI uses <name>, not <artifactId>, in most places where a project is being referred to:

[INFO] Reactor Build Order:
[INFO] Maven Archetype
[INFO] Maven Archetype Testing
[INFO] Maven Archetype Webapp Proxy
[INFO] Maven Archetype Webapp Repository
[INFO] Maven Archetype Common
[INFO] Maven Archetype Plugin
[INFO] Maven Archetype Packaging
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building Maven Archetype 2.0-SNAPSHOT

> BTW: in "Open project" dialog I see artifact ids -- not project names.

No, you see folder names, since you are in a file chooser.
Comment 9 mkovtun 2010-12-08 18:10:24 UTC
OK, you have convinced me that I have no hope...

I know what is good for me.

But you know better than me what is good for me.
Comment 10 Jesse Glick 2010-12-08 20:16:16 UTC
You know what is best for your projects, but the interface has to be usable by thousands of people with all sorts of projects; and the general practice is for <name> to be something which would be appropriate for display in the IDE's Projects tab and similar contexts. We also do not as a rule offer configuration options in the UI unless they are definitely needed by a large number of users with no simple workaround.
Comment 11 mihai 2012-08-22 06:29:23 UTC
Created attachment 123375 [details]
Comment 12 mihai 2012-08-22 06:29:30 UTC
Why it is this bug closed? Who is voting for features and where? For years I am forced to put the artifact id in front of the project name. I am at the third project where i am doing this and i must explain to my colleagues that i am doing this because i am using netbeans. I am the only one that use netbeans and i was for many years the only one in multiple companies and projects. I attached a print screen with my project names. I will reopen the issue. Let us vote. If you believe is an effort to implement this choose between artifactid and name in the UI, just make a JVM parameter for us.
Comment 13 kalwi 2013-03-20 09:20:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> OK, you have convinced me that I have no hope...
> I know what is good for me.
> But you know better than me what is good for me.

I agree and sympathize with this ironical comment. Even if one way is useful for thousands of people, it can totally annoy the rest. I think that this should be customizable. And even "low-level" hidden setting in configuration files with no GUI would be an acceptable solution for a minority of users as a compromise.

There is an another enhancement which probably would solve it, but it doesn't work for me (but I had yet no time to analyze whether it is a problem on my side, or a bug):
Comment 14 Jesse Glick 2013-03-20 10:56:12 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 194773 ***