Am 16.07.10 14:36, schrieb Rainer Schöpf:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Am 16.07.10 12:11, schrieb Rainer Schöpf:
> > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > if there is a consensus to switch to Maven in the 2.1 branch, I'd
> > still like
> > > to address some issues beforehand:
> > >
> > > Should we keep the web application structure? At the moment, files
> > like XSLT
> > > stylesheets etc. are just copied to the webapp directory. With
Maven,
> > a
> > > module is usually deployed in a single file, e.g. a JAR file.
> >
> > That's the default, but there is no reason why it has to be so. More
> > precisely,
> > this the default goal of the package phase of the default lifecycle if
you
> > specify jar packaging in the toplevel pom.xml file.
> >
> > For lenya, war packaging is probably the right thing.
>
> Yes, as far as the whole web application is concerned. But what about
single
> modules? If we switch to Maven, my idea would be to build modules as Maven
> projects. The dependency tree of a module could look like this:
>
> lenya.modules.foobar
> \- lenya.core-api
> \- lenya.modules.foo
> \- lenya.modules.bar
>
> WDYT?
Yes and no. From the top of my head I'd put the core modules into one maven
project.
But then we would lose the benefit of Maven's modularization
capabilities … I'm not sure if managing external dependencies is worth
the trouble.
-- Andreas
--
Andreas Hartmann, CTO
BeCompany GmbH
http://www.becompany.ch
Tel.: +41 (0) 43 818 57 01
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lenya.apache.org
