So you are arguing that there should be seperate a source tree for a given project, and seperate soruce trees for any integration which I am in agreement with. What is not clear is where the source lives. It could be a seperate cvs module from either the integrator and integratee, or it could be in either the integrator or integratee modules. Its just a question of should there be meaning to the structure of the cvs modules.
> > > In terms of monolithic vs modular, I think were in agreement as the > > only source I am envisioning is the integration and > management code. I > > am suggesting the legacy code that will never be standalone > just be in > > jbossas as least initially. If your arguing that everything > should be > > seperated from the start, ok, let's discuss it. The only thing that > > has been done as far as I know if removal of remoting from > jboss-head > > to introduce the binary. I'm only working on reproducing the legacy > > thirdparty binary structure for use with the 4.0 build. > > > > Source trees have been added to the top level build and I > thought you suggested that everything should be in one cvs module. > > I agree that that CVSROOT/modules is not the place to define > the project struture. > Equally, a directory structure inside a cvs module is not the > place either. > The correct place to define the project structure is in the > versioned ant files for the top level builds and the > referenced components. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ids93&alloc_id281&op=click _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
