On 28/09/09 11:38 AM, Heiko Seeberger wrote:
> Indrajit,
>
> Impressive work!
> See my comments below ...
Thank Heiko! My response inlined.
/Indrajit
>
> Heiko
>
> 2009/9/27 Indrajit Raychaudhuri <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>
>
> [A] lift-* prefix looks superfluous, but it's best to have one for all
> artifacts that generate jar (<packaging>jar</packaging>). Also Maven
> reactor feels happier when artifactId == directory_name (site
> generation, scm extrapolation etc., situation might have improved
> now).
>
>
> Let's keep it!
So be it! BTW, we already have an anomaly (lift -> lift-webkit) that
would have to be fixed in that case.
>
> [B] The top level project categories (lift-core, lift-persistence,
> lift-modules etc.) are simple multi-module models at the moment and
> not meant to create anything other than pom. Therefore, lift-* prefix
> can go away. But they'll have to come back if we plan to generate 'one
> jar' in assembly mode per category (lift-core-all.jar, lift-
> persistence-all.jar etc.). This could be useful for 'get me
> everything, I don't care about size' people. But is it necessary? The
> alternative is to have empty 'meta modules' that pull up the necessary
> dependencies and can be included by the users in their project (quite
> similar to what lift-core does now).
>
>
> Again, let's keep the prefix, because for Lift users not using Maven
> these *-all.jars will be valuable.
Very good point, and a good practical reason for having *-all.jars. Thanks!
>
> [D] Presentations and other materials aren't really source code for
> inclusion in source repository. Can this go in wiki? (immediate
> problem: github doesn't take attachment). Has this been discussed
> earlier? They can go as a separate github project too.
>
>
> GitHub's Wiki or Downloads are not well suited for these materials. I
> tried myself for ScalaModules and it was frustrating.
> Therefore I think keeping them in the repository in a separate folder
> which of course in not a Maven module is a pragmatic solution.
>
> [F] The modules in a category can be further sub-grouped, but with
> caution. Basically, need the right mix between 'flat'-ness and deep
> nesting. Thoughts on this?
>
>
> Let's not go deeper right now.
Good. So we'll avoid nesting at the module level.
>
> --
> Heiko Seeberger
>
> My job: weiglewilczek.com <http://weiglewilczek.com>
> My blog: heikoseeberger.name <http://heikoseeberger.name>
> Follow me: twitter.com/hseeberger <http://twitter.com/hseeberger>
> OSGi on Scala: scalamodules.org <http://scalamodules.org>
> Lift, the simply functional web framework: liftweb.net <http://liftweb.net>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
