On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 25 March 2011 16:32, Rajith Attapattu <[email protected]> wrote:
qpid/transport/{trunk/branch}
qpid/client/{trunk/branch}
qpid/broker/{trunk/branch}
qpid/qmf/{trunk/branch}
So - I think this is my aspirational directory structure...
I'm +1 on this, too. It would allow us to make each top-level component
consistent wrt developer and user experience, and even just in the naming
it spells out the dependencies.
the issue for me right now (and sticking only to the codebase I know most
about) is that because of the current cruft in the Java... there's a whole
load of stuff in Java that is currently defined as "common" that shared
between the broker and Client implementations... but I wouldn't want to
pollute "transport" with. I'm not sure what my solution to that is... maybe
having an interim java-common-cruft directory as a peer of client and broker
until such time as it can be made more presentable...
One alternative you may have considered already:
qpid/transport/{trunk,branches}
qpid/node/{trunk,branches}
qpid/qmf/{trunk,branches}
It would solve the sharing problem by exploiting the client-broker
symmetry of 1-0. Indeed, we're not going to have just clients and
brokers; eventually we'll likely have proxies, concentrators, etc.
not sure how the above structure would work for the C++ guys who will also
currently have some shared code between client and broker I imagine...
I think it's the same situation, with more colons.
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
