I wonder if we need
a) the prefix 'studio' for the modules
b) having the org.apache.directory.studio in the artifact name
so a checkout directory structure could look like
to be continued
and a dependency would look like
In fact we can separate to modules on it's own projects, because they are not 'immediately' involved in the studio project:
- studio-plugin (parent pom is already org.apache.directory.project:project)
- studio-dsml-parser (need to change the parent pom to ?)
- All the others I'd them as they are now.
If taking also the dsml-parser out of the build process we need either to make sure that it exists as dependency in a
remote repository or have a note in the documentation saying that you also need to build the dsml-parser (like the
plugin) before the studio can be built.
I don't now if it's a good idea but e.g. we can have a new directory project called directory-plugins where the
maven-studio-plugin comes into and also the ones from apacheds which are intend of a more global use in future.
The dsml-parser could be moved into the shared project. If you think that dsml parser can be used that globally why not
put it in the studio-ldapbrowser-core module? I couldn't find any other place where it's used.
I think most of these duplications are a result of trying to do all of it in one build. If we can create the above
mentioned modules on it's own it probably would make things easier.
Yes, please go ahead. I think tar (or zip) is a more logical format than a jar (which would also be possible)