felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAf...@ca.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Repository/package structure
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:45:56 GMT
and of course, it is not particularly useful to an Eclipse-based 
developer.  The good thing about PDE is that it directly and inherently 
supports OSGi bundle development with extremely accurate classpath 
renditions and tooling for maintaining versions etc.  It also puts in 
place a simplified process that means you don't have to think about 
project structure much.  Of course, this clashes directly with Maven's 
simplified process :-)


"Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org> 
12/02/2005 09:51 AM
Please respond to


Re: Repository/package structure

Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I'm glad you brought this up.  Maven 2 is great if you do things the 
> maven 2 way.  Things go really bad, if you try to adopt your own 
> strategy.  This is a good thing. imho, since maven 2 is kindof a 
> revolt against the millions of ways that ant projects can be setup.
> Here is what would be a vanilla maven 2 setup:
>   trunk/
>      felix-framework/
>      felix-shell/
>      felix-shell-tui/
>      felix-bundlerepository/
>      felix-http-jetty/
>      felix-prefs-jndi/
>      felix-upnp/
>      felix-log-simple/
>      felix-log-postgres/
> Each project would have the following structure
> src/
>    main/
>        java/
>            org/apache/felix/...
>        resources/
>    test/
>        java/
>            org/apache/felix/...
>        resources/

Well, I am not totally against this structure, but it does somewhat suck 
for people like me who still regularly use the command line to keep 
making our paths deeper and deeper.

> Anything that's in test, never makes it into the bundle that's produced.

However, our tests may be packaged as a [potentially separate] bundle...

-> richard

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message