Robert Leland wrote:
> "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> > Note that the below comments relate to packaging JAR files in the *source*
> > repositories of various projects -- as stated above, I have no problem with the
> > idea of creating a "Struts Development Kit" if people find that useful.
>
> So.... This would be a separate archive with all needed jar's and
> their matching documentation ?
>
> These files would not live in the CVS tree, just on the web site ?
> I like this better because packing all this stuff in the CVS tree
> makes downloading slow. For instance pulling J2EEUnit from CVS slow.
> This is because ant.jar,jaxp.jar,junit.jar, etc.
> are in the J2EEUnit module.
>
The way we do this in Tomcat offers one model:
* No dependency JAR files are included in the Tomcat CVS repository
* The Tomcat build process has numerous external project dependencies,
which you point at with environment variables to grab the versions you want
of each such package.
* The output of the "dist" target is a nightly distribution that includes everything
you need to run Tomcat (including an XML parser, servlet API classes, etc.).
If we do something like this for Struts, I would suggest that we leave the existing
packaging for the nightly downloads (for people who just want to stay up to date),
and a separate "Struts Developer Kit" that has everything you need.
Question -- would a Struts Development Kit include a servlet container? If so, the
choice is pretty obvious. If not, why not? Where do you draw the line of what a
development kit would include?
>
> I suggest only releasing a developers kit for each released
> version of struts. Struts 1.0, 1.1.
Conceptually, there is no difficulty creating the SDK with nightly distributions as
well.
> Also I see a number of people in
> the jakarta-general list frowning on putting binaries under CVS control.
> If a developer wants to work with the current CVS sources then
> they would have to build their own environment.
>
> >
> > Turbine (and others) use "target" where you have "out" -- I'm OK with either.
>
> I would say then lets stick with "target" just to 'walk softly' on Jakarta
> conventions.
>
> So what where do we stand on the revised directory structure for struts ?
>
I will try to summarize what I think has been discussed in a separate message.
>
> -Rob
Craig
