I guess the rest of the proposal looks good... not sure that the
build dependencies fit into those boxes as they are laid out though
(and they probably don't fit into my example either).
I think we may have to stage this... probably can create framework/
and move a few modules in there asis. Then probably many to move
modules/ to server/ and then start to split off modules one by one
into a peer directory.
--jason
On Aug 31, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Joe Bohn 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
