> [+1] Standardize on the project-centric 'base.path' approach.
> [ ] Standardize on the repository-centric 'lib.repo' approach.
> [ ] Leave as is.
(I'm expressing a personal preference, not declaring that it's "better".)
--
Martin Cooper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: property naming (Re: cvs commit: jakarta-commons/digester
build.properties.sample)
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:41:22PM -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jeff Turner wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 07:49:29PM -0800, Daniel Rall wrote:
> > > > Why not use lib.repo instead of root? Many other projects are
already
> > > > using this variable to point to the location where Java libraries
are
> > > > rooted.
> ...
> > > I think we should assume a more structured, project-centric approach:
> > >
> > > base.path = ${user.home}
> > > jakarta.home = ${base.path}/jakarta
> > > proj.home = ${jakarta.home}/...
> > > proj.jar = ${proj.home}/...
> > > junit.home = ${base.path}/junit3.7
> > > junit.jar = ${junit.home}/junit.jar
> ...
> >
> > The projects that inherit their build philosophy from Turbine definitely
> > like lib.repo, because they tend to put all the dependency JAR files in
> > one place.
> >
> > The projects that inherit their build philosophy from Struts and Tomcat
> > definitely like base.path, because they assume that you have checked out
> > and built each of the dependent JARs, in a common base subdirectory.
(For
> > me, for example, that is /home/craigmcc/Jakarta, with a subdirectory
under
> > it for each CVS repository I care about, and I maintain the results of
> > "ant dist" builds in each case for the code that I currently develop
> > against).
> >
> > The defaults from Digester have inherited the latter philosophy (because
> > of where the code came from), so base.path is a better name for
> > build.properties.sample in this case.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> > NOTE: This isn't a value judgement on which philosophy is better --
both
> > are equally valid, but consistency within a particular philosophy is
even
> > more important than choosing one or the other.
>
> I rather thought Jakarta-commons had it's own internal consistency to
> defend, irrespective of where a project originated.
>
> No need for flames about such a trivial issue. Anyone who cares, please
> vote:
>
> [ ] Standardize on the project-centric 'base.path' approach.
> [ ] Standardize on the repository-centric 'lib.repo' approach.
> [ ] Leave as is.
>
>
> --Jeff
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
