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. ... > > 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? :-) > > > > As long as there is separation of the code, and the build target for > the tool.jar doesn't require j2ee.jar to compile, I'm perfectly fine > with it....
if you think about it, the 2nd of your prerequisites is dependent on the first (for any sane implementation)... both these have been promised and will be done. so, i'll take this as the end of opposition (at least from committers) and get to work on it. Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
