On 26/10/2010 22:57, Michael Anstis wrote:
Hi Geoffrey,

Being relatively new I can't comment on some of the specifics, but I question the following:-

    * drools-assistant
    * drools-atom
    * drools-clips (I believe Mark did this on a rainy weekend, but
      don't know if it's still supported).
    * drools-container
    * drools-doc\drools-docs (which is actively used?!? Do we need both?)
    * drools-rhq-plugin
    * drools-simulator
    * install
    * src

I have thought for a long time I'd be good to have on the Wiki a summary of what each project represents and what package (JAR) they bundle into.
You just volunteered yourself for your first task next november when you start ;)

Mark

Cheers,

Mike

On 26 October 2010 15:59, Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.s...@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I am looking at cleaning up the build and moving to maven 3, to
    make it
    faster, more reliable, etc.
    I am also actively wondering if some modules or files aren't dead
    code.
    First candidate is drools-atom:

    The module drools-atom is in limbo:
    - It still exists
    - It's not part of any build
    - Does it still build? No
    -- 'dependencies.dependency.version' is missing for
    org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-frontend-jaxrs:jar
    - Does it still compile against the latest drools version? Idunno, but
    since it's not part of the build, tomorrow's refactor might break it.
    - Does anyone use it? If it doesn't build and it isn't released... no?

    I don't think that code is useful to anyone in this state. I do think
    it's presence alone slightly complicates the drools sources.


    What do we do with it?
    - [A] remove the directory drools-atom from trunk (it's still
    retired in
    in subversion)
    - [B] leave it like it is now. It might be usefull to someone
    - [C] add it to the build again, make it work
    - [D] create a separate repository "drools-incubator" and move it
    there

    In my opinion:
    +1 for [A]
    -1 for [B]: either it builds or it's not in trunk


    If we all agree that removing dead modules is a good idea, I 'll
    provide
    a list of possible candidates next time.

    --
    With kind regards,
    Geoffrey De Smet

    _______________________________________________
    rules-dev mailing list
    rules-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
    https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev



_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

Reply via email to