Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make that easy for them? It's not very useful for the SDO binary distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a little clumsy. I do think it would be good to simplify the set of distribution files to a source and a binary distribution. So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_ distribution would include sample _source_. We could ship the sample binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user. So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven. Perhaps the binary distributions should include - the sample source - binary samples ready to run - a generic description of how to build the samples - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction son how to get maven going - javadoc for the API However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated. Kelvin. On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS distributed artifacts. We currently have the following distributions : - Source : have das source implementation (M2) - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2) - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source code and derby canned database (M2) - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2) Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like : - Source : DAS source implementation - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples binaries and derby canned database + javadoc My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view. I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the binary distribution. Please, express your thoughts.. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
