-1 for this structure.
You won't have the same structure in your compiled jar and in your src
directory. This will cause some comprehension problems.
Hervé
----- Original Message -----
From: John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Turbine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] om/peer package organization
> If we put all the om/peer
> > > objects in one package but still present the source files as
> > >
> > > om/
> > > om/peer
> > > om/base
> > > om/base/peer
> > >
> > > would this cause any problems or criticism?
> >
> > I don't follow you.
>
> I would like
>
> om/Foo.java
> om/peer/FooPeer.java
> om/base/BaseFoo.java
> om/base/peer/BaseFooPeer.java
>
> to compile to
>
> om/Foo.class
> om/FooPeer.class
> om/BaseFoo.class
> om/BaseFooPeer.class
>
> I'm not sure how easy it is to do something like this. We can do it
> easy enough with Ant, since we are copying the src tree into a build
> directory before compiling. But my guess is that it could mess with
> some other build systems. I am hoping that it is doable, but I can live
> without it.
>
> John McNally
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
