Modules is fine with me, but I thought part of the previous proposal was to
have vendors at a higher level, so for instance jboss stuff would fit into
one module rather than >= 2 (ejb + jmx).
Is there really an point to separating the core tasks for ejb, jmx, web,
etc out from core?
xdoclet
template
util
ejb
xml-rpc
jmx
web
modules
jboss
ejb
jmx
WL
ejb
web (?)
Castor
I don't know about the size issues, but I think the important pluggability
is for what app server you are using more than which layer you are working
on.
david jencks
On 2002.04.24 04:27:41 -0400 Ara Abrahamian wrote:
> Btw, I think we shouldn't have the word "optional" in file/package
> structure, "modules" is better. I'm generalizing some XML-RPC templates
> right now and I don't know whether to put it under optional or in core.
> If I put it under core then I don't have the nice directory structure of
> optional modules (as described below), and if I put it under optional
> then well it's really not optional, after all Sun's JWSDP package is
> going to be the standard for web services stuff!
>
> So agree on "modules" instead of optional/core? Something like this:
> Core
> Xdoclet
> Template
> Util
> Modules
> Ejb
> Core (entitypk/etc)
> Jboss
> Xml-rpc
> Web
> core
> Jrun
>
> Now in build.xml of root we decide which ones are part of the standard
> distribution and which ones are going to end up in optional.jar, maybe
> defined in a modules.properties file. This makes it easy to move a
> subtask from optional<->standard.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ara.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:xdoclet-devel-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ara Abrahamian
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:33 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Xdoclet-devel] CVS update: xdoclet/core/samples/jboss -
> New
> > directory
> >
> > > > I think we should put samples and test
> > > > in each module's folders:
> > > > Optional
> > > > Jboss
> > > > Src
> > > > Script
> > > > Tests
> > > > Samples <-
> > > >
> > > > This way if a guy comes up with JDO templates for Kodo vendor he
> can
> > > > simply provide the whole stuff including samples in a single ready
> > to
> > > > commit zip file.
> > > >
> > > > Agree?
> > >
> > > Tests, sure, but I'm not convinced about the samples - it makes it
> > harder
> > > to demonstrate how we can have one set of source files producing a
> jar
> > > that's deployable on a variety of app servers. Plus, either they've
> > got
> > > to come up with more samples or (more likely) they'll re-use the
> ones
> > we
> > > have with their tags instead, in which case is it really that much
> > work to
> > > merge them into a common set?
> > >
> > > Also, I though the samples were moving up to the same level as core
> &
> > > optional, since they contain examples of both lots of tags?
> >
> > Keep the giant samples in root. These samples are more focused on that
> > module. Jboss samples in jboss module demonstrate all jboss tags and
> > options. Samples in root demonstrate a complete multi-faceted project,
> > including some jboss/multi-vendor stuff.
> >
> > Ara.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xdoclet-devel mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xdoclet-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
