On 13/12/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote: How so? I presume that we provide examples not for ourselves, but for our users. Similarly, the sole purpose of the distribution directory is to build artifacts for our users. The examples are presumably always packaged in the distributions as sources, even the binary distributions, and having them under the distribution directory facilitates that.
The examples depend on the client (since the examples exercise the client API - we should perhaps create another clientAPI module that is separate from client but that is a separate discussion). I think that the examples should therefore depend on client, and we should build them when the client code changes. Therefore I think it makes sense to have them somewhere where they can depend on client, and be rebuilt when client changes. We should obviously distribute binaries of the clients so that users can run the examples without necessarily setting up a build environment.
Do you really want to build the examples every time you do a build?
Yes, I would.
If so, will the examples have tests that execute in the test phase?
Perhaps not since that may be a pain since the examples won't utilize the in-VM broker. But the examples should I think all be built and as a manual process (i.e. with a script) they should be runnable with some manual setup (e.g. start a broker).
Will an examples jar be produced? If so, does that really make sense, given that the main value of examples is that users can read and copy the sources to learn how to use the system?
Yes I definitely think a jar should be produced. I think it is useful for users to be able to run a sample app without having to compile anything.
If they're a sub-module of the client, do they build and test as part of the client's build and test?
They build as part of client but I don't think it makes sense for them to be tested since as I said above, testing may be a bit more manual that other test processes. RG
