felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Walker <r...@ascert.com>
Subject Re: Dumb question
Date Wed, 03 May 2006 09:18:45 GMT
Was just chatting with Richard and he suggested I add my 10c here - bear 
in mind, I'm neitger a maven or Apache old-hand here though, so I'm 
aware I may be suggesting things that don't fit

    * the long dir names on one hand look great, nice and important and
      official looking. But on the other hand they're a pain to work
      with, and the org.apache.felix trunk has a high level of redundancy.
    * we must have re-org'd our dev. fs structures here a dozen times,
      and it's never been perfect. What we have now is a flat 'project'
      / 'component' approach which works, and has limited redundancy in
      naming - everything is a component of a project, even bundles that
      are just 3rd party re-packaged JARs. Ok, in Felix terms I guess
      this is more 'subproject' / 'component'
    * In our model though, every component maps to exactly 1 bundle
      which isn't the case in Felix - and I really used to like the old
      Oscar model, where "bundle" components had their own separated area

So my vote would be something like a "subproject / component" approach, 
with either one of the subprojects being "bundles", or a separate 
bundles area which has it's own subproject/component hierarchy 
underneath - of course if we need to we could further subdivide OSGi 
standard bundles vs. other donated ones.

Of course all of these are heavily personal preferences, and I'm aware 
others preferred structures will differ.

-- Rob


Richard S. Hall wrote:

> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>
>> I have the same difficult ...but you suggest these changes because 
>> you want easily install the bundles from a common location or because 
>> you don't like such flat structure (or both ;-) ). In the former case 
>> maybe it is possible to add some instructions to move every bundle in 
>> a common directory ... without big changes to the structure .... I'm 
>> just supposing :-)
>
>
> It is a little bit of both...I don't like having so much in the trunk, 
> especially since all of the names are so long...you basically get one 
> column in 'ls' which is already scrolling off the screen.
>
> Such hardships! :-)
>
> -> richard
>
>>
>> francesco
>>
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to see some reorganization of the repo, but I don't 
>>> know enough about it to do it myself. If someone wants to step up 
>>> and do some organizing, I think that would be great. I would love to 
>>> see all bundles being dropped into a common "bundle" directory.
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm going to commit the rest of UPnP examples, this thread seems me 
>>>> be concluded about the  "Apache Felix " prefix, but what about  
>>>> the  re-organization proposed by Marcel?
>>>> I assume we are postponing any changes to the repo structure so far 
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Francesco
>>>>
>>>> Dennis Geurts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:17 +0200, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, we might want to categorize the subprojects:
>>>>>>  - framework;
>>>>>>  - bundles;
>>>>>>  - examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can imagine you might want to build just the framework, or the

>>>>>> bundles, for example. Is that something that's possible and fits

>>>>>> in the "maven way of working"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings, Marcel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcel,
>>>>>
>>>>> What you suggest is possible in mvn (if that infers it is a maven 
>>>>> way of
>>>>> doing, I don't know)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider the following set-up: (bear with me)
>>>>>
>>>>> /pom.xml                               <--packaging == pom, no parent
>>>>> /framework/pom.xml                     <--packaging == pom, parent
>>>>> == /pom.xml
>>>>> /framework/framework-main/pom.xml      <--packaging == any, parent
>>>>> == /framework/pom.xml
>>>>> /framework/framework-util/pom.xml      <--packaging == any, parent
>>>>> == /framework/pom.xml
>>>>> /framework/framework-optional/pom.xml  <--packaging == any, parent
>>>>> == /framework/pom.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> /bundles/pom.xml             <--packaging == pom, parent == /pom.xml
>>>>> /bundles/bundle1/pom.xml     <--packaging == osgi-bundle, parent
>>>>> == /bundle/pom.xml
>>>>> /bundles/bundle2/pom.xml     <--packaging == osgi-bundle, parent
>>>>> == /bundle/pom.xml
>>>>> /bundles/bundle3/pom.xml     <--packaging == osgi-bundle, parent
>>>>> == /bundle/pom.xml
>>>>> /bundles/bundle4/pom.xml     <--packaging == osgi-bundle, parent
>>>>> == /bundle/pom.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> /examples/pom.xml            <--packaging == pom, parent == /pom.xml
>>>>> /examples/example1/pom.xml   <--packaging == any, parent
>>>>> == /examples/pom.xml
>>>>> /examples/example2/pom.xml   <--packaging == any, parent
>>>>> == /examples/pom.xml
>>>>> /examples/example3/pom.xml   <--packaging == any, parent
>>>>> == /examples/pom.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> furthermore:
>>>>> /pom.xml has modules: -framework
>>>>> -bundles
>>>>> -examples
>>>>>
>>>>> /framework/pom.xml has modules:
>>>>> -framework-main
>>>>> -framework-util
>>>>> -framework-optional
>>>>>
>>>>> /bundles/pom.xml has modules
>>>>> -bundle1
>>>>> -bundle2
>>>>> -bundle3
>>>>> -bundle4
>>>>>
>>>>> idem for examples
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> to build ALL targets, navigate to '/' and do mvn 'install' (or any 
>>>>> other
>>>>> goal)
>>>>>
>>>>> to build all 'framework' targets, navigate to '/framework' and do 
>>>>> 'mvn
>>>>> install'  (or any other goal)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings, Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

-- 


Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com


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