On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Brian Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > All of these benefit from separating the code and URLs of the two > > > subsystems. > > <snip> > > > > Can we please not separate the code too much? There's a certain > > amount of infrastructure that can be usefully shared between the two > > services. > > > > I suspect that the best approach here is going to have a separate sub > project for the shared code (under java/shared or perhaps java/social). > Both > java/gadgets and java/api (or whatever name is appropriate) would consume > the various shared pieces here. The other language ports can follow a > similar convention using an appropriate structure for their platform. > > I originally encouraged Cassie to check the code into a setup like that, > but > she had some reasons that now escape me for not doing it then. I think it > had something to do with not wanting to run a separate server. Both systems can still run on the same server. It really doesn't matter whether it is one server or two different servers. In java land, they can be so separate at run-time that they can run as two separate applications (ear or war files) even if they are deployed on the same app server or servlet container, even though they share some code.
