+1 on this proposal
On 8/31/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to propose that we keep things simple and eliminate redundancy
where possible. I'd also like to keep things as brief as possible to
prevent current or future issues with the windows pathlength issue. I
don't think the proposed changes will cause immediate problems but I'd
like to prevent/reduce the possibility of problems.
Do I understand correctly that with this proposal what is currently
"modules/geronimo-j2ee-builder" would become
"system/geronimo-j2ee/geronimo-j2ee-builder"
.... and what is currently
"modules/geronimo-j2ee" would become
"system/geronimo-j2ee/geronimo-j2ee"?
If so, then I think we are introducing some unnecessary redundancy once
again.
BTW, do I understand correctly that you're proposing the removal of
"modules" or is this presumed to be prior to each of the new names?
I wondering if it might be better to have more types and less subtypes
(perhaps deciding to have only a single collection of types with no
subtypes at all). Perhaps something like:
builders/ (not sure yet if I like this myself :-) )
geronimo-j2ee-builder
geronimo-service-builder
geronimo-axis-builder
geronimo-tomcat-builder
geronimo-jetty-builder
geronimo-security-builder
geronimo-service-builder
geronimo-connector-builder
geronimo-naming-builder
geronimo-client-builder
geronimo-j2ee-builder
geronimo-web-builder
** Note, the way we name builders and the way we name deployers is
inconsistent. I think we need to decide if we want the descriptive type
first or last in these names and use the pattern consistently.
deployers/
geronimo-deploy-core (was geronimo-deployment) ?
geronimo-deploy-config
geronimo-deploy-jsr88
geronimo-deploy-tool
geronimo-deploy-hot (was geronimo-hot-deploy ... just to be
consistent with other deployers but see note above) ?
framework/
geronimo-testsupport
geronimo-test-ddbean (not sure what this is either)
geronimo-common
geronimo-util
geronimo-interceptor
geronimo-activation
geronimo-kernel
server/
geronimo-management
geronimo-security
geronimo-core
geronimo-system
geronimo-transaction
geronimo-connector
geronimo-jmx-remoting
geronimo-naming
geronimo-client
geronimo-j2ee
geronimo-j2ee-schema
features/
geronimo-activemq-rar (rename)
geronimo-activemq-gbean
geronimo-activemq-gbean-management
geronimo-axis
geronimo-derby
geronimo-directory
geronimo-tomcat
geronimo-jetty
geronimo-mail
geronimo-timer
geronimo-webservices
tools/
geronimo-upgrade
geronimo-converter
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
> So, I've mentioned a few times before that we should start thinking
> about how to split up modules in trunk into a few smaller chunks. I
> took a few minutes and took a crude stab at what that might look like.
> This is just an example of how it might work... I did not do any
> extensive research into dependencies...
>
> Basically, I split things up into 5 main trees:
>
> * framework - common stuff, not really the server, but supports the
> server, modules here should have minimal deps
> * system - the major components which make up the server's system
> (should be the bits to start up a server shell)
> * tools - bits that support the system
> * plugins - components which plugin to the system
> * testsuite - placeholder for modules which will be aded soon that use
> the itest plugin to perform integration tests
>
> I'm not sure if this is the best split, but it kinda comes closer to
> what I hope we can get to. Below is how the modules that exists fit
> into these sections.
>
> ----
>
> framework/
> geronimo-testsupport (may need to be in other tree? so can include
> in all modules by default)
> geronimo-common
> geronimo-util
> geronimo-interceptor
> geronimo-activation
> geronimo-kernel
>
> system/
> geronimo-management
> geronimo-security
> geronimo-security-builder
> geronimo-service-builder
> geronimo-core
> geronimo-system
> geronimo-transaction
> geronimo-connector
> geronimo-connector-builder
> geronimo-jmx-remoting
> geronimo-naming
> geronimo-naming-builder
> geronimo-test-ddbean (wtf is this for?)
> geronimo-deployment/
> geronimo-deployment (rename to -core) ?
> geronimo-deploy-config
> geronimo-deploy-jsr88
> geronimo-deploy-tool
> geronimo-hot-deploy
> geronimo-client
> geronimo-client-builder
> geronimo-j2ee/
> geronimo-j2ee
> geronimo-j2ee-builder
> geronimo-j2ee-schema
> geronimo-web-builder
>
> plugins/
> geronimo-activemq/
> ge-activemq-rar (rename)
> geronimo-activemq-gbean
> geronimo-activemq-gbean-management
> geronimo-axis
> geronimo-axis-builder
> geronimo-derby
> geronimo-directory
> geronimo-tomcat
> geronimo-tomcat-builder
> geronimo-jetty
> geronimo-jetty-builder
> geronimo-mail
> geronimo-timer
> geronimo-webservices
>
> tools/
> geronimo-upgrade
> geronimo-converter
>
> testsuite/
> TODO, home for itest usage
>
> ----
>
> Anyways, I wanted to post what I am thinking. I think that we are
> really close to the point where we will want to implement this sort of
> split up.
>
> Comments?
>
> --jason
>
>
