Mailing-List: contact felix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4459ABFC.2000403@ungoverned.org>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 03:23:40 -0400
From: "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dumb question
References: <4433D530.4000107@ungoverned.org> <4433DF9D.2060005@luminis.nl>
 <1144319726.8714.28.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <44579E63.6030807@isti.cnr.it> <4457B113.9070304@ungoverned.org>
 <4457B8B8.3050306@isti.cnr.it> <4457BC92.3040900@ungoverned.org>
 <44587575.1080309@ascert.com>
In-Reply-To: <44587575.1080309@ascert.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

For a start, I am not against shorting the directory names to just the 
unique portions of the actual package name.

I think we need to think more carefully about creating specific groups 
around the concept of "bundle", since we original did shy away from this 
since we decided that a "bundle" was merely a deployment unit and that 
the subprojects could in fact be bundled up in various ways in the future.

However, that does not mean that we can not find some sort of 
organization, even if we just call them "service-impls", "libraries", etc.

-> richard

Rob Walker wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>