A single top-level build seems fine, as long as the structure of the sources are kept separate, and the README reflects the separate intent...
On 5/11/05, Eddie ONeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay; I can see wanting them to continue to appear separated. > > Could we still do that with documentation and keeping the separation > of integration/ and web/ directories with a build.xml above both? > > In lieu of that, how about a shared build.properties file that > defines the servlet.jar and beehive.home? Otherwise, there are two of > each to set. > > Eddie > > > On 5/11/05, Kyle Marvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I wanted to make it clear that the integration stuff wasn't > > _part_ of the sample webapp (other than in jar form), but something > > that was usable for any Spring/Beehive webapp. I worry a little that > > merging them might lose that point... but calling from the webapp one > > to the integration one (if the jar isn't already there) seems fine. > > > > On 5/11/05, Eddie ONeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Kyle-- > > > > > > Hey; quick question on the controls-spring sample we've got now > > > (which is cool!). I was looking at getting controls-spring into the > > > Beehive distribution, and noticed that there are two build files in: > > > > > > controls-spring/ > > > integration/ > > > build.xml > > > web/ > > > WEB-INF/ > > > src/ > > > build.xml > > > > > > Was wondering what you'd think if I compacted these into a single > > > build file? You would still be able to build the Spring integration > > > JAR separate from the webapp, but there would be only one place to > > > configure / build / etc. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > >
