On 1/31/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, fair enough... by why are you calling it "samples-parent"?
Usually -parent modules are themselves top-level projects with no
children, which are used to hold common pom configuration.
I'd recommend simply calling the module "samples" instead.
The top level is called "samples" already. Maybe "samples" and
"samples-parent" should switch names.
And we may even want to just make a samples module in the server
tree, since it looks like you are branching this project when the
server is branched. It may be better to add this module to the
server project and simply make it build optionally.
Yeah. I thought of that option too. The first major drawback I saw
there was in the possibility of increasing the size of the server
tree. If Hernan eventually gets (us) to migrating his entire sample
collection from 1.0 to whatever is latest, then we will be
unnecessarily wasting time during svn co of our server tree.
Next, we all know that you plan to break the server tree and make it
more modular. Anticipating such a re-org, I thought I'd save you some
trouble by putting it as a peer to specs and server. And now you don't
like it :-(
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=8652849&framed=y
--jason
Cheers
Prasad
On Jan 31, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> The samples-parent was added to have a separate tree for the
> individual samples and differentiate them from the
> geronimo-samples-archetype child project.
>
> A lot of parent level configuration is applicable only to the samples
> tree but not to the archetype. For eg. resources filtering can be
> configured at the top for the samples sub-tree but this should not
> happen for the archetype.
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 1/31/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> why is there a 'samples-parent' underweight the top-level 'samples'
>> project? ie...
>>
>> <snip>
>> samples/
>> pom.xml
>> samples-parent/
>> pom.xml
>> </snip>
>>
>> This seems very, very odd to me. Why was this done?
>>
>> --jason
>>
