I originally thought of the 'support' subdirectories as having a 1:1 correspondence with a 3rd party API. If that would be the case, then wouldn't the following make sense?
core web (I call it web to match the package - also 'web' seems more general whereas war seems very artifact-specific) support/spring support/ehcache support/quartz support/crowd support/openid4java Then in the support source trees, you'd have org.jsecurity.<thirdPartyName>.foo.bar... For example in the support/crowd source tree, you'd see org.jsecurity.crowd.realm.CrowdRealm (or something like that) What do you think? On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's start w/ our modules. Here's what I think where we're going: > > core > war (better name/organization?) > support/spring > support/ecache > support/quartz > support/struts > realms/crowd > realms/openid > > How do you see the directories, i.e. code, resources, etc.? > > > Regards, > Alan > > > On Dec 26, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> I'm certainly ok with that, as long as we get to design the directory >> layouts, and a tool doesn't dictate it to us... >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if it would be possible to have multiple build systems for >>>> the same body of code. Each build system proponent would take >>>> responsibility for maintaining their build system. It would kinda like >>>> be >>>> Berlin after WWII. >>> >>> Sure ! I will rule the french area ... Who will be in charge of the >>> russian >>> one ? ;) >>> >>> Seriously, yes, we could, but it would be a lost of time, IMHO. When it >>> works, don't fix it... >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> cordialement, regards, >>> Emmanuel Lécharny >>> www.iktek.com >>> directory.apache.org >>> >>> >>> > >
