Hi gang!
Currently, a <module/> element tends to correspond roughly to the
ant|maven|make definition of a project, and a <project/> element tends to
correspond roughly to the ant|make definition of a target or the maven
definition of a goal. I.e.
<repository name="ant">
<module name="ant">
<project name="bootstrap"/>
<project name="ant"/>
<project name="dist"/>
</module>
</repository>
It might make sense to make this
<module name="ant">
<project name="ant">
<target name="bootstrap"/>
<target name="build"/>
<target name="dist"/>
</project>
</module>
However, we've also got stuff like
<repository name="jakarta">
<module name="jakarta-commons">
<project name="jakarta-commons-collections/>
<project name="jakarta-commons-net"/>
<project name="jakarta-commons-io"/>
</module>
</repository>
Where one would hardly want to make "jakarta-commons" be an actual project.
The more and more I look at this, the more I'm disliking how all this is set
up, esp. as its not very consistent across different projects, and we don't
have very clear guidelines on how people should be doing this (other than
"copy existing practices"). It's a little messy.
I'm tempted to do a radical remodelling of our metadata structure to remove
this kind of ambiguity, even going as far as having conventions like
project-name-is-file-name be gently enforced.
Oh, ehm, I was even briefly tempted to turn our model into RDF but there
ain't that many good tools for RDF editing :-D
Your comments?
Cheers,
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
