geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: Web Console Status
Date Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:26:29 GMT
Short answer: it was easier that way

Long answer: We already have infrastructure in plance to handle many
modules one level below the geronimo/applciations directory, where I think
this ultimately belongs.  I don't fancy trying to explain to Maven that
things can be *one or two* directories below applications.  But Maven and
I don't communicate all that well, so if someone else thinks this should
work or wants to take a shot at making it work that's fine.  I'd prefer to
aim to restructure as we move it out of sandbox, but whatever.


On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Aaron,
> Is there any reason why you choose to expose the 4 modules directly 
> under sandbox instead of
> adding a intermediate node (say "console") with a single maven.xml to 
> build all of the modules in
> the correct order?  This would make things much simpler and keep the 
> console contributions
> together under the sandbox so they aren't confused with other items as 
> the sandbox grows.
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >	I have the web console working as four separate modules under 
> >geronimo/sandbox.  You have to build them one at a time and manually copy 
> >stuff into the assembly repository and manually deploy, but that will all 
> >be resolved when we migrate it out of the sandbox.
> >
> >	There are two blocking issues right now:
> >
> > - Pluto is missing one of the two JARs from its Maven repository.  I have
> >   an e-mail in to the maintainer.
> >
> > - Commons-fileupload does not have a new enough (1.1-dev) JAR in its
> >   maven repository, and the console does not compile against the older
> >   one.  Geir was going to talk to someone about that.
> >
> >Aaron
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> -- 
> Joe Bohn     
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."   -- Jim

View raw message