geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Restructuring trunk, then next steps
Date Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:21:31 GMT
So, while cleaning up dependencies a bit to try to make separate  
transaction and connector-deployer configs, I remembered that we have  
this problem that right now the maven dependencies between modules  
(jar files) are all to other geronimo jar files, whereas the geronimo  
dependencies usually need to be to other configs (car files, modules,  
configurations,.... aren't names fun).  This kinda sucks.  We _could_  
try to make the dependency systems line up, which might mean we can  
simplify both the build and some of our dependency tracking code....  
or it might not, but at least there'd only be one set of dependencies.

So the idea is that we'd build a few jar files, then the car file  
that puts them in the server together with the services we expose  
from the classes.  The maven dependencies of the car file would be  
the same as the geronimo classpath for it.  Then the next set of jar  
files can use the pom from the car project and get the whole set of  
dependencies.   For the car file using the jar we just built, we'd  
pull all the maven dependencies from the jar into the car file,  
either explicitly or by using the geronimo-dependency.xml file or a  
replacement (such as the pom itself)

At this point it would make sense to organize the build tree by car  


david jencks

On Sep 7, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:

> On 9/7/06, David Jencks <> wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> > BTW I do think we should rename the dirs to match the maven
>> > standard geronimo-foo standard.
>> I completely agree
>> >
>> > -dain
>> >
>> > On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Fine with me.
>> >>
>> >> The tree is still in need of reorganization even after those
>> >> modules are gone.
>> >>
>> >> --jason
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Please don't get mad at me, but I'd like to move a bit slower on
>> >>> more classification inside of the server module.  I'd like to
>> >>> pull transaction and connector out to independently versioned
>> >>> modules and then see if the tree still feels crowded.
>> I tend to agree with this too.  One think I have thought briefly
>> about for years (?!) is separating the builder modules and the
>> runtime modules.
> +1!
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> <big snip>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Hiram
> Blog:

View raw message