Any rough idea what that car-organized tree might look like?
--jason
On Sep 11, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:
So, while cleaning up dependencies a bit to try to make separate
transaction and connector-deployer configs, I remembered that we
have this problem that right now the maven dependencies between
modules (jar files) are all to other geronimo jar files, whereas
the geronimo dependencies usually need to be to other configs (car
files, modules, configurations,.... aren't names fun). This kinda
sucks. We _could_ try to make the dependency systems line up,
which might mean we can simplify both the build and some of our
dependency tracking code.... or it might not, but at least there'd
only be one set of dependencies.
So the idea is that we'd build a few jar files, then the car file
that puts them in the server together with the services we expose
from the classes. The maven dependencies of the car file would be
the same as the geronimo classpath for it. Then the next set of
jar files can use the pom from the car project and get the whole
set of dependencies. For the car file using the jar we just
built, we'd pull all the maven dependencies from the jar into the
car file, either explicitly or by using the geronimo-dependency.xml
file or a replacement (such as the pom itself)
At this point it would make sense to organize the build tree by car
file.
Thoughts?
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 7, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 9/7/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 5, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> BTW I do think we should rename the dirs to match the maven
> standard geronimo-foo standard.
I completely agree
>
> -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.
I tend to agree with this too. One think I have thought briefly
about for years (?!) is separating the builder modules and the
runtime modules.
+1!
thanks
david jencks
<big snip>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
