Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jgenender@savoirtech.com
 designates 209.181.65.237 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <431B429B.1020602@savoirtech.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:53:15 -0600
From: Jeff Genender <jgenender@savoirtech.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Are these files ok?
References: <431A5364.9060904@savoirtech.com> <431A56ED.4000801@gmail.com>
 <431B01FF.60100@savoirtech.com> <431B09F1.5040704@savoirtech.com>
 <431B144B.6010301@gmail.com> <431B1752.3030206@savoirtech.com>
 <431B1DDD.6050200@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <431B1DDD.6050200@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Sachin Patel wrote:
> One last statement before everyone else throws there two cents in :)...
> 
> I strongly believe that including this is a necessity.  Unlike geronimo, 
> these aren't regular java projects that can be adapted to invoke within 
> a users context and IDE choice and that can be launched different ways. 
> These projects contain eclipse specific content and can only be launched 
> within an eclipse environment and thus the files are critical to the 
> projects configuration.  By not including these files we put a 
> requirement on Eclipse users to have Maven and this breaks the 
> consistency.  

I probably need to be educated here.  Are you saying the eclipse 
.classpath files are included as part of the binary, or required for the 
build?  If its required for the binary, then I understand the need for 
inclusion.  If its for the build, then I disagree with you.  You need a 
build tool, yes?  You choose either ant or maven.  This is no different 
than any other project. What is the consistency you are referring to?

> Without the files, you essentially are making the 
> statement saying that these projects are eclipse plugins, that will only 
> run on top of eclipse, but FIRST you need to launch maven for Eclipse to 
> be able to consume them.  I don't think that is reasonable.  Eclipse 
> plugin projects extracted out of the repo AS IS should be ready to be 
> consumed by Eclipse without the requirement for Maven.

Ok...so then you are talking about the .classpath included as part of 
the binary?

Your clarification here will help me immensely ;-)

Jeff


> Sachin.
> 
> Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>
>>> Could we just prevent that by overriding the maven:eclipse goal in 
>>> the projects' maven.xml and echo out a message stating a message that 
>>> no .classpath generation is necessary since these are already eclipse 
>>> projects?
>>
>>
>> Lets get others' input on this.  If the .classpath inclusion is just 
>> for convenience, then I am against this since, again, we are 
>> detracting from the way geronimo does things.  Throughout geronimo, we 
>> let maven build the project ide files.  It makes sense due to the many 
>> ways these files can get changed due to people's preferences.  I 
>> really want to have consistency in all of our projects, unless its 
>> absolutely necessary. Once we break consistency, we are headed down a 
>> slippery slope.
>>
>>>
>>> FYI. The mevenide plugin is also including the .classpath in their repo.
>>
>>
>> They also use cvs, so then should we drop svn and use cvs too?  IMHO, 
>> this is comparing apples to oranges. Mevenide is not part of a very 
>> large application server and is not affected by a much bigger overall 
>> build.  Also, just because another project does it, does not mean its 
>> the best way for this project.  Thats a facet of all of open 
>> source...each project has their own way of doing things.
>>
>>>
>>> Sachin.
>>>
>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm now that I think about this...
>>>>
>>>> Sachin, these files will likely get overwritten when someone does a 
>>>> "maven eclipse".  Be prepared for these to get overwritten fairly 
>>>> often, and will likely get rechecked in.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I think this is needed. Since these are eclipse plugins to 
>>>>>> begin with I consider these to be part of the project 
>>>>>> configuration.  Eclipse users should be able to directly import 
>>>>>> these projects into Eclipse without having to generate the 
>>>>>> .classpath.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as these have no machine specific info in it then it may be 
>>>>> ok. ..ie same configuration that will work on Windows, Linux, and 
>>>>> Mac. But normally, I am against this.  We usually use maven to 
>>>>> generate these files for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noticed these files going into the eclipse plugin:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UU   sandbox/eclipse-plugin/org.apache.geronimo.ui/.classpath
>>>>>>> UU   
>>>>>>> sandbox/eclipse-plugin/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model/.classpath 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UU   sandbox/eclipse-plugin/org.apache.geronimo.core/.classpath
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are these ok?  IIRC, these are user/computer specific to the 
>>>>>>> user's setup.  Are these supposed to be checked in (.classpath)??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>