Adam Heath wrote: > David E Jones wrote: >> Not sure if I like this... My preference would be that each build file >> only owns its directory and below. This change makes a lower level build >> file manage something higher level. >> >> What if the framework or base directories move, or we want more build >> flexibility? >> >> I can see how if you build just the base component or just the framework >> directory that the ofbiz.jar file won't get updated. In a way that would >> be expected though... >> >> If anyone else has an opinion on this please chime in. It's not a big >> deal, but is one of those things that could make life difficult in the >> future and just need to be changed back. > > In that argument, framework/build.xml should not update it either, and > only the top-level. > > The reason why I did this, is quite often I'd cd into framework/base, > and just run ant there. Then I'd wonder why my changes hadn't taken > place, because the ofbiz.jar at the top-level hadn't been updated. > > Maybe a better change would to not copy the file at all, and just modify > the startup to pull from framework/base.
I'm not wedded to this change, btw; if enough others don't think it's wise, I'll undo it. I looked into altering things to pull from framework/base, so that no top-level ofbiz.jar would be nescessary. While modifying the scripts/code is simple enough, there is plenty of documentation and best practices that point to the ofbiz.jar in the top-level. Changing humans is hard, so having it automatically updated is the correct approach. Whether that's done in framework/base, or some place else, is what is being discussed. Another idea, that doesn't sit well with me. Shouldn't framework/base/src/start be split into it's own component? Maybe framework/start, or just move that code to the top-level. After all, it's just the start code that goes into ofbiz.jar. If it were moved to the top-level, then this argument would become moot.
