On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>> >> Agreed. It's just a local repo. Do you think adding a little structure add >> technical difficulty or is a flat structure a personal preference? I'm >> interested in situations like this where we have some people who want >> solution A and others want solution B (where both solutions are valid). How >> do we come to a conclusion? In the past this has tended to stall us a little >> so this is a good chance to see if we can do better;-) >> >> I'm seeing some technical issues: >> >> 1) Adding a little structure will make the distribution incompatible with >> Equinox OSGi launcher and PDE target platform. >> > > I believe this is a statement about how it works just now rather than a > statement about blockers for change. > > >> 2) There will be overlapping jars between features, with a flat structure, >> each artifact will have a unique location in the distro folder. >> > > True. This point is move valid I think. Think about this a little more some > feature will have three types of dependencies in the context of the Tuscany > organization > > SomeFeature depends on > 1/ jars from other features (e.g. core) > 2/ jars for the explicit dependecies for the module > 3/ jars from transitive dependencies that don't appear in either 1 or 2 > > > in 3 there could be jars that are common with other features but you don't > know precisely which. I guess this may break this idea or we could just put > these in a common sub dir. > I don't see any problem with overlapping jars. There's various ways of dealing with them, anything from just including them in the base lib, using a (or several) common libs, or just letting them be duplicated etc. I'd already looked through all the dependencies in 1.4 and don't see any we can't deal with, if anyone does see one then bring up the specific case and i'm sure we'll be able to think of a way to handle it. ...ant
