David Van Couvering (JIRA) wrote:
I'd like to revisit our beloved issue of code sharing.
[snip details on code sharing proposal that does not negatively impact
users. Hooray!]
I personally prefer an approach similar to the obfuscation tools, where
1) All the code imports the checked in files and is built to the
classes directory as normal. Just as if we had no code sharing concerns.
Developers can point to the classes and debug and edit as normal.
2) In the jar build, after building the classes the code is copied and
modified as needed to create a separate name space under production/java
and then built to production/classes. The jars are built from
production/classes. For running derbyall developers are instructed to
point to the jars to catch any troubles in this process.
Maybe some of the newer obfuscation tools have something more clever,
but since essentially what we are doing is obfuscating these classes so
they don't conflict , I think this might be a good approach that will
impact developers less. The only downside I see is build time when
building jars, but that will be required only before running tests.
I certainly won't put up a fight if we do it the other way, but just
thought I would throw this out there again.
Kathey
