Is this a must have or a nice to have? Everything in the tree is already geronimo and nicely fits
in a geronimo dir in the maven repo. Can someone from Maven enlighten me as to why the redundancy
is necessary and how redundancy is a good thing to be redundant. Not to repeat myself, but I guess
I'm not getting why redundancy is good.
You might need to send me two e-mails of the same information so I remember that I was asking about
redundancy :)
What was I talking about? Oh yeah, redundancy.
Seems odd that the server structure has to match the build system. Isn't that a bit of bleed
through? Oh gosh, there I go again being redundant. Sorry, I'm repeating myself, oh, there I go
again. Sorry...oops, one last time. ;-P
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
BTW I do think we should rename the dirs to match the maven standard
geronimo-foo standard.
-dain
On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Fine with me.
The tree is still in need of reorganization even after those modules
are gone.
--jason
On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Please don't get mad at me, but I'd like to move a bit slower on more
classification inside of the server module. I'd like to pull
transaction and connector out to independently versioned modules and
then see if the tree still feels crowded.
-dain
On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I am sure that some of these names will change...
But the directory name should be the same as the artifactId... so
that its easy to see where the source for artifacts come from, and
because some maven plugins that work on sets of modules make that
assumption (like site plugin for example) when running.
This is a best practice with Maven... and I don't recommend moving
away from that.
Before we already had things like console-jetty making a jar named
webconsole-jetty-* and others too which only make it more difficult
to tell where these things come from.
--jason
On Sep 5, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'm assuming everything is not geronimo- ... that might be from the
department of redundancy department.
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
