commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <j...@socialchange.net.au>
Subject Re: property naming (Re: cvs commit: jakarta-commons/digester build.properties.sample)
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:59:43 GMT
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:41:22PM -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jeff Turner wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 07:49:29PM -0800, Daniel Rall wrote:
> > > Why not use lib.repo instead of root? Many other projects are already
> > > using this variable to point to the location where Java libraries are
> > > rooted.
...
> > I think we should assume a more structured, project-centric approach:
> >
> > base.path = ${user.home}
> > jakarta.home = ${base.path}/jakarta
> > proj.home = ${jakarta.home}/...
> > proj.jar = ${proj.home}/...
> > junit.home = ${base.path}/junit3.7
> > junit.jar = ${junit.home}/junit.jar
...
> 
> The projects that inherit their build philosophy from Turbine definitely
> like lib.repo, because they tend to put all the dependency JAR files in
> one place.
> 
> The projects that inherit their build philosophy from Struts and Tomcat
> definitely like base.path, because they assume that you have checked out
> and built each of the dependent JARs, in a common base subdirectory.  (For
> me, for example, that is /home/craigmcc/Jakarta, with a subdirectory under
> it for each CVS repository I care about, and I maintain the results of
> "ant dist" builds in each case for the code that I currently develop
> against).
> 
> The defaults from Digester have inherited the latter philosophy (because
> of where the code came from), so base.path is a better name for
> build.properties.sample in this case.

Thanks for the explanation.

> NOTE:  This isn't a value judgement on which philosophy is better -- both
> are equally valid, but consistency within a particular philosophy is even
> more important than choosing one or the other.

I rather thought Jakarta-commons had it's own internal consistency to
defend, irrespective of where a project originated.

No need for flames about such a trivial issue. Anyone who cares, please
vote:

[ ] Standardize on the project-centric 'base.path' approach.
[ ] Standardize on the repository-centric 'lib.repo' approach.
[ ] Leave as is.


--Jeff

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message