geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anita kulshreshtha <a_kuls...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Restructuring trunk, then next steps
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:13:52 GMT

--- David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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  
> file.

+1
  
thanks
Anita


> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> 
> > On 9/7/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> 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: http://hiramchirino.com
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message