directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
Date Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:02:41 GMT
Hi Emmanuel,

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/11 4:50 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>
> comments in line.
>>
>> Shared has grown somewhat and I think it will grow more as we tack on
>> more protocol additions and functionality. I was thinking of using
>> some project module hierarchy to try to establish some organization we
>> can grow with.
>>
>> Here's what I was thinking:
>>
>> shared/
>>     i18n/
>>     util/
>>     integ/
>>     asn1/
>>         api/
>>         ber/
>>     dsml/
>>         parser/
>>         engine/
>>     ldap/
>>         codec/
>>         model/
>>         schema/
>>         schema-converter/
>
> wouldn't it be better to make it a sub-module ?

Yes these are all sub modules.

>>
>>         client-api/
>>         codec-standalone/
>>         all/
>
> Shouldn't it be a separated module ?

Hmm I don't quite understand you here. These are all separate modules
broken down for better hierarchical organization. Could you be a bit
more specific, I want to make sure I understand you fully.

Thanks.

>>
>>         protocol/
>>             mina/
>>         extras/
>>             aci/
>>             sp/
>>             trigger/
>>             util/
>>             archetype/
>
> What is this module about ?

The archetype module? It contains some Maven archetypes for rapidly
setting up new extension oriented maven projects. Like for example an
archetype to start a new control project or a new ext req/resp pair.

>>
>>                control/
>>                extended/
>>                schema/
>>             codec/
>>                api/
>>                plugin/
>>
>> The deepest level is 5 and we'd concat levels into the names as we
>> kind of do already. Here is the very last node,
>> shared-ldap-extras-codec-plugin, as an example of the artifactId
>> composition standard.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2.

I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you
want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to
that.

Regards,
Alex

Mime
View raw message