Paul McMahan wrote:
On 1/12/07, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul McMahan wrote:
> OK now that I'm looking deeper into this things are becoming clearer.
> First of all, as you pointed out the directory module is already
> included in the jee5 assembly, which I wasn't aware of. Apparently
> the commit that was supposed to have removed it from the dist only
> updated the config.xml and not the pom, which seems to have left it in
> the repo even though it's not listed in the server configuration. Or
> maybe just removing it from the config.xml was sufficient to prune it
> from the dist before we started building with m2(?). So at any rate,
> its in the assembly now just not listed in config.xml or started by
> default.
right, so we should decide whether we ship it as a plugin or in the
assembly (properly configured and enabled). If we go with the plugin
idea then we should remove the mod and conf and any other traces from
the branch (not just the assembly). If we go the other way around
maybe we should remove the plugin for 1.2 and 2.0 as an alternative
trying to avoid confusion.
It's not necessary (or IMO desirable) to remove a component from the
branch when its offered as a plugin instead of enabled in the default
assembly. IMO. the decision about whether or not a component is part
of some particular assembly shouldn't necessarily dictate where the
source for that component resides. As long as the component remains
in the branch we retain the option of enabling it in an assembly or
offering it as a plugin, or both.
In this case we're talking about the directory component. If we
include it in the default assembly then we should still offer it as a
plugin since someone might uninstall it and then later decide to
reinstall it as a plugin.
yup, you're right. I was only thinking in one scenario and that it would add more
complications to maintain up-to-date the same "feature" in two different places.
I did not think about a conf like littleG.
Cheers!
Hernan
Either way, although important, I think now that is less critical as
the plugin configuration (Geronimo side) is working.
agreed
Best wishes,
Paul
