----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: File directory structure for jakarta-commons
[snip]
> > > > Because this subproject is designed to produce small independent
JARs as
> > > > well, I think we should offer that *in addition* to the all-in-one
> > > > downloads.
> > > >
> > > > What I really don't want to see is the *lack* of an all-in-one
download,
> > > > forcing me to make multiple downloads if I really do want
everything.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ok. Thus, that would mean.
> > >
> > > 1)
> > >
> >
www/jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-cactus/v1.0-b1
> > > /commons-cactus-1.0-b1.zip
> > > - that's the full disto excluding sources. Meaning it will contain :
> > > commons-cactus-22-1.0-b1.jar
> > > commons-cactus-23-1.0-b1.jar
> > > commons-cactus-ant-1.0-b1.jar
> > > commons-cactus-sample-22-1.0-b1.zip
> > > commons-cactus-sample-23-1.0-b1.zip
> > > commons-cactus-doc-22-1.0-b1.zip
> > > commons-cactus-doc-23-1.0-b1.zip
> > >
> > > Do you think I have to redo my build file to have a directory
structure
> > > instead of zips or jars ? Like :
> > >
> > > commons-cactus
> > > |_ 22
> > > |_ doc
> > > |_ lib
> > > |_ sample
> > > |_ 23
> > > |_ doc
> > > |_ lib
> > > |_ sample
> > > |_ README
> > >
> >
>
> That would be my preference. If I want the all-in-one bundle, then it's
> more convenient to not have to unzip things inside the download.
>
One more question. Do we deliver a single file with the 2 directories for
the different servlet API or 2 files :
www/jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-cactus/v1.0-b1
/commons-cactus-1.0-b1.zip
or
www/jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-cactus/v1.0-b1
/commons-cactus-22-1.0-b1.zip
www/jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-cactus/v1.0-b1
/commons-cactus-23-1.0-b1.zip
with each zip containing the following directories
common-cactus-<version|dstamp>
|_ doc
|_ lib
|_ sample
|_ LICENSE
|_ README
I would tend to prefer the solution of the 2 zips because usually users
choose to work with one servlet API but very seldom with both. What do you
think ?
> One file to add in the top-level directory would be "LICENSE", to remind
> people what license the code is distributed under.
>
+1
> > It makes more sense to have a directory structure. I'll do that. Geeze
... I
> > wanted to deliver tonight but it's already past midnight ... I'll have
to
> > deliver tomorrow ... :)
> >
>
> Sorry about that. I promise to be patient :-)
>
:)
> > > 2)
> > >
> >
www/jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-cactus/v1.0-b1
> > > /commons-cactus-src-1.0-b1.zip
> > > - that's the sources
> > >
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > > 3)
> > >
> >
www/jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-cactus/v1.0-b1
> > > /ant.zip
> > > - that's the prepackaged Ant application with the correct jars already
in
> > > the lib directory. That's to help newcomers.
> > >
>
> Hmm, over time I guess we need to talk about how to deal with optional Ant
> tasks that need extra Jars there. I guess this is fine in the mean time.
>
yes, I know, I am not completely pleased with that myselves but that's the
easiest solution I have found to make it easy on newcomers.
> > > Notice that I have removed the single distribution of jars. That's
fine
> > with
> > > me.
> > >
>
> Does it make sense to have commons-cactus-22-$VERSION.jar and
> commons-cactus-23-$VERSION.jar to be downloadable as well? I'm
> envisioning that ultimately people are going to start building Ant scripts
> with targets that go grab just the required JAR files off a server
> (ultimately this would be done in a "CJAN" style), without having to
> unpack anything.
>
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > Vincent
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Vincent
> >
> >
>
> Craig
>
Vincent
