On Sep 20, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> The recent emails got me thinking about cleaning up the trunk
> tree. After about 20 minutes of investigations (so take it for
> what it is worth :) I came up with the following proposal:
>
>
> Sandbox - I think this should be moved to the root of the tree and
> be a place where any committer can play or experiment freely. The
> contrib directory in the sandbox seems like it was created as an
> initial home for the initial import new contributions (i.e., a tag
> of the initial import). I like this idea and think we should move
> contrib to root and attempt to back fill the big initial imports
> like the console and the eclipse plugin. The other sandbox
> directory I have questions on it petstore. If it works, I think we
> should move it to an examples directory off of root.
> geronimo/trunk/sandbox --> geronimo/sandbox
> geronimo/trunk/sandbox/contrib --> geronimo/contrib
> geronimo/trunk/sandbox/mail --> geronimo/sandbox/mail
> geronimo/trunk/sandbox/petstore --> geronimo/examples/petstore
> geronimo/trunk/sandbox/spring-assembly --> geronimo/sandbox/spring-
> assembly
+1
>
>
> Specs - I think we are ready to split this off into an
> independently released and tightly managed subproject.
> geronimo/trunk/specs --> geronimo/specs
>
+1
Although I'd rather take it and make it bigger, because we have
conflicts right now, for example w/ Tomcat and WS stuff.
IOW, have Apache Specs or something
>
> Console - Aaron correct me if I'm wrong... I assume that the
> console is tied to the version of the Geronimo server it is
> included with, so it would be unreasonable to ship it separately.
> Therefore, I think we should make move it to the root of trunk
> geronimo/trunk/applications/console-core --> geronimo/trunk/
> console/core
> geronimo/trunk/applications/console-ear --> geronimo/trunk/
> console/ear
> geronimo/trunk/applications/console-framework --> geronimo/trunk/
> console/framework
> geronimo/trunk/applications/console-standard --> geronimo/trunk/
> console/standard
>
>
> Applications - I think these we need to discuss more, but I have a
> few suggestions. Some of these are examples, and some look like
> real applications. Here is my best guess at how they break down:
> geronimo/trunk/applications/demo --> geronimo/examples/
> SomeMoreInformativeName
> geronimo/trunk/applications/jmxdebug --> geronimo/sandbox/
> jmxdebug (I think this need more work or we should simply drop it)
> geronimo/trunk/applications/magicGball --> geronimo/examples/
> magicGball
> geronimo/trunk/applications/uddi-server --> geronimo/applications/
> uddi-server
> geronimo/trunk/applications/welcome --> geronimo/trunk/
> welcome (not sure... is this the tomcat/jetty welcome app?)
>
>
> In general we end up with the following structure:
> geronimo/trunk - Stuff needed for the J2EE server
> geronimo/specs - Specification API implementations
> geronimo/trunk/console - The J2ee web admin console
> geronimo/sandbox - Play area
> geronimo/contrib - Tags of the initial import from a donation
> geronimo/examples - Example apps for new users
> geronimo/applications - Standalone applications such as dayTrader
> and uddi-server
>
That works for me. I'd combine examples and applications though...
The bit w/ app on root is what I was trying to get at with the second
part of the vote.
This seems like a repackaged subproject suggestion, w/o calling it a
subproject. david seems to believe that dayTrader and apps need to
be tied to the version of Geronimno - I think they'd be independent
releases?
geir
> This is just my opinion....
>
> -dain
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
|