Geir said
> On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 04:39 PM, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > My (latest version of the) proposal was *not* to eliminate a generic
> > tools
> > package, but to merely fold the directory trees together. There would
> > then
> > be a org.apache.velocity.tools.generic.* package to replace the
> > excised and
> > ill-named org.apache.velocity.tools.tools.* package.
>
> That's not so bad. It's just a renaming? I'd easily retract the -1 if
> just a renaming. I never liked tools.tools either.
yes, in terms of package structure, it's just a renaming.
> >> BUT, that doesn't need to imply multiple jars are required for
> >> deployment. The build.xml could still build three jars but the view
> >> jar
> >> would also include tools; struts jar would include both view and
> >> tools.
> >> The tools jar would just be generic tools. So no matter what your
> >> use, there's still only one jar to deploy. It should be rather easy
> >> to
> >> fix the build.xml to do this.
> >
> > True, this deployment scheme (which sounds great) can (and, barring
> > strenous
> > objection, will) be implemented with either the current three-tree
> > structure
> > or the single-tree structure i propose. Given this assurance, would
> > you
> > agree that the single-tree structure is more efficient and easier to
> > maintain (esp. when traversing file paths)?
>
> ?
but... in terms of how we have the files organized in CVS, this would
involve moving pretty much all the source code around and reworking the
build.xml to have convenient "build just this part targets."
see, right now we not only build into three separate jars, but we also have
three source code directory trees to match. this is a PITA IMHO. instead
of having
view/src/java/org/blah/blah/blah/view
tools/src/java/org/blah/blah/blah/tools
struts/src/java/org/blah/blah/blah/struts
i would like to have just
src/java/org/blah/blah/blah/[view|tools|struts]
this is really not that radical of a concept. with the proper ant targets,
no theoretical users will be horribly inconvenienced, and nathan's
bizarre-perfectionist-neat-freak urges will be temporarily satiated. now,
is that really worth a veto? :-)
Nathan Bubna
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
