+1
On 4/23/07, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
On 4/23/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This sounds good to me.
>
> On 4/23/07, Timothy Bish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey Guys
> >
> > This morning I was starting to look at submitting the openwire
> > generation classes from ActiveMQ-CPP into the openwire generator when a
> > thought occurred to me and I wanted to run the idea by you guys to see
> > what you thought.
> >
> > Currently all the projects that have openwire generator scripts place
> > all their openwire generator scripts in the activemq-openwire-genertor
> > artifact. So for instance there are java classes in the Openwire
> > generator artifact for the Openwire-CPP project that has now be moved to
> > the sandbox as nobody is maintaining it. So it seems to me like it
> > would probably be better to have the projects themselves create an
> > artifact that is dependent on the activemq-openwire-generator artifact
> > and include their own Openwire Generation classes there, making use of
> > the base functionality provided in the current package.
> >
> > So I was thinking that I'd have ActiveMQ-CPP create an artifact called
> > activemqcpp-openwire-generator which was dependent on the
> > activemq-openwire-generator and then use that in our main pom.xml as the
> > dependency for the ant task we currently have in place. This way the
> > code specific to the Project for generating the Openwire classes would
> > live and die with its own project, not with the main ActiveMQ
> > distribution. This way when a project like the Openwire-CPP one for
> > example stops being supported, its openwire scripts don't hang around in
> > the activemq openwire generator artifact.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > Regards
> > Tim.
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
