On Aug 6, 2007, at 8:12 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I certainly agree with your goal but am less sure about your
proposed naming and organization. Also from looking at your list
it took me a couple minutes to figure out what is removed from
"server"
I've been thinking that we could proceed by turning bits of the
server into plugins. For instance I was planning to turn the
directory bits I commented out recently into a plugin this week. I
think we could fairly easiiy turn jetty, tomcat, and openejb into
plugins. I wonder if, after turning the "easy stuff" into plugins
what we will think about reorganizing the remaining stuff.
So then the question might be how to organize the plugins?
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I'd like to backup the
idea of pulling things out one at a time, like we did with connector
and transaction, making them plugins if possible. It would be really
great if people do things like upgrade OpenEJB when a new release
came out -- which we're hoping is often.
-David
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Hiya, I've mentioned this before... and now that we have a 2.0
branch and trunk has moved on to 2.1 work, I think its time we
really make a decision on this and implement it.
Before, I had been thinking of keeping all of the modules in the
server/trunk tree just in better locations organized by
functionality and feature not by artifact type. But, now I'm
thinking we should really do one step more than that, and split up
the server/trunk project into several smaller and more manageable
chunks of modules. I still think that the basic grouping that we
kinda talked about before should work fine, but instead of having
them share a project namespace we give them their own.
So, for example...
server-support/trunk
testsupport
buildsupport
server-framework/trunk
geronimo-activation
geronimo-client
geronimo-client-builder
geronimo-clustering
geronimo-common
geronimo-connector
geronimo-connector-builder
geronimo-core
geronimo-deploy-config
geronimo-deploy-jsr88
geronimo-deploy-jsr88-bootstrapper
geronimo-deploy-tool
geronimo-deployment
geronimo-gbean-deployer
geronimo-interceptor
geronimo-j2ee
geronimo-j2ee-builder
geronimo-j2ee-schema
geronimo-jmx-remoting
geronimo-kernel
geronimo-management
geronimo-naming
geronimo-naming-builder
geronimo-security
geronimo-security-builder
geronimo-service-builder
geronimo-system
geronimo-test-ddbean
geronimo-timer
geronimo-transaction
geronimo-transaction-jta11
geronimo-transformer
geronimo-util
geronimo-web-2.5-builder
And then we can group some of the related components up into
shared projects, or just go out and give each component its own
project, and/or think about maybe using the same style that the
maven/plugins/trunk tree uses, a shared project, but each
component is related individually... still not sure I like that,
kinda messy.
I don't want to end up with a ton of projects either, and I
certainly don't want to get up using SNAPSHOT versions of these
puppies if we can help it. So, maybe to start out we could do these:
server-support
server-framework
server-components
server-assembly
BTW, I'm using "dash" here so that the names don't collide with
what is there now, but really we could user server/support/trunk,
server/framework/trunk, etc (which is better IMO for the longer run).
And in the process of making this split up, we can re-arrange
modules by feature and function instead of by type... and actually
we have to do that to make the components bits work.
* * *
I really believe this will help improve the support and
maintainability of the server's code-base and it will help the
project scale better as new components are added too. For
developers that are only interested in working on a specific
component, it reduces the amount of other sources they need to
check out and reduces the time to build too, so that they can
build a clean server assembly faster and developer their features
sooner and hopefully have less hair-pulling and more relaxed beer
drinking as they pat themselves on the back for doing such a
speedy job.
I really, really... really, really, really ( :-P ) think that we
*must* move along these lines for the longer term health of the
project...
Comments? Suggestions?
--jason
