Just a quick response: It's really inconsistent, but perhaps inmemory * could be included in core? As a "special case"..
*shrug* Regards, Kevin On 2 Dec 2012 at 10:24, Dan Haywood wrote: > On 2 December 2012 10:13, Kevin Meyer - KMZ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To express my preferences: > > > > *) Have subdirectories for function, and help in grouping: > > e.g.: > > core/ > > security/ > > viewer/ > > objectstore/ > > inmemory > > jdo > > nosql > > sql > > ... > > > > likewise for viewers, security, etc... > > > > (I think it a little inconsistent to have "viewer-wicket" at the same > > directory level as "core". I think "viewer" should be at the same level as > > "core", but there may be consequences that I am not aware of). > > > > > The directory groupings aren't that significant for those components that > are separately released (And, of course, if they move to their own git > repos, then the issue is moot). > > However, putting inmemory-objectstore in this directory structure IS an > issue, assuming that we want to have it as part of core. The reason is > that I don't think that the <modules> tag in the parent pom can have an > entry such as: > > <modules> > <module>core</module> > <module>runtime</module> > <module>../objectstore/inmemory</module> <== not sure if this is doable. > ... > </modules> > > > > > *) Have groupIds grouped by function (as proposed in the wiki > > 2012/12/02 10h00 GMT): > > o.a.i.viewer,* > > o.a.i.objectstore.* > > > > ok, good > > > > > *) Have artifactIds gouped by technology (as proposed in the wiki > > 2012/12/02 10h00 GMT (as proposed in the wiki 2012/12/02 10h00 > > GMT): > > isis-jdo-* > > isis-sql-* > > isis-nosql-* > > > > > ok, good ... a consensus is starting to emerge on this one > > > > *) If I understand that git does not let you pull subdirectories, then I > > think I would prefer if git repositories were grouped by technology (e.g. > > "sql, jdo",etc for datastores (which would contain the security, etc > > packages). Viewers, etc, are probably not affected, are they? > > Progmodel - maybe, yes (groovy vs default (java)?). > > This will let me ignore (e.g. jdo) for as long as I don't need it. Please > > also consider those who may still have to pay per MB, like I used to! ;) > > > > > I thought about doing this, but I think a better solution if we are worried > about such things is to use separate git repos. Then people can just pull > down the repos that they want to work on. So, can we park this proposal > for now? > > Thx for the input > Dan > > > > > > > If some of my preferences have inconsistent consequences: e.g. > > directory structure with separate git repositories, please point this out > > and I'll reconsider!! > > > > Regards, > > Kevin > >
