Hi, On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > These components rev based on the repository or search engine, not > based on ManifoldCF, and their dependencies are primarily on the > repository or search engine, not on ManifoldCF. Some of them can only > be built on Windows, for instance, and some require different versions > of Java than the base version we need to build the main ManifoldCF > code. I posted about this perhaps 2.5 months ago, and repeated my > query a few times; nobody seemed to have a better idea than to make > each plugin essentially a separate package.
Sorry for missing the discussion at the time. It still sounds like conditional compiling would be a good solution to this, but you certainly understand the issues better so I trust your judgement here. To answer your original questions 1 and 2: 1) It sounds like it would be best to also include binaries as a part of the component releases if we're in any case going to be including those bits in the main ManifoldCF release. 2) As Tommaso already noted, the release process is essentially the same regardless of the kind of component being released. PS. As for component naming, "Apache SharePoint 3.0 ManifoldCF Plugin" is a bit unfortunate since it could be read as compoing from an "Apache SharePoint" project! A better one would be "Apache ManifoldCF plugin for SharePoint 3.0". BR, Jukka Zitting
