geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul McMahan" <paulmcma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Where should we put Samples and Plug-ins?
Date Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:09:56 GMT
Thanks Donald for migrating this discussion onto dev@.  I posted some
feedback about option #1 in the JIRA you referenced.  To sum up, I was
concerned about moving optional modules to an area called "plugins",
since IMO that's a misnomer since optional modules aren't always
plugins and plugins aren't always optional :-)   I am also concerned
about complicating release management for optional modules that are
sensitive to the Geronimo server version.

I think we can solve the problem described in G2728 without
reorganizing the source tree, for example by adjusting the server
dependencies.  But if there is also some motivation to further trim
down what's in server/trunk (to speed up the build, perhaps) then I
like option #2 better.

Best wishes,
Paul

On 1/24/07, Donald Woods <drw_web@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As part of the discussion on G2728 relating to the Directory server and
> LDAP-Demo sample -
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2728
> I'm wondering how others would like to see us handle optional server
> components for 2.0, as we currently have some samples and plug-ins in
> geronimo/server/trunk/, but others are under geronimo/samples/trunk and
> geronimo/plugins/trunk.
>
> Should we:
> 1) Move them out of geronimo/server/trunk and
>     - move all sample apps (like Magicgball, ldap-demo, ...) to the
> existing geronimo/samples/trunk and have them automatically built and
> published by gbuild
>     - move all optional and non-Geronimo plugins (like ApacheDS) to the
> existing geronimo/plugins/trunk and have then built and published by gbuild
>
> 2) Keep all the samples and plug-ins in the server tree, but under a new
> directory like server/trunk/samples or server/trunk/opt and use a maven
> profile so they are not always built, but always build and publish them
> from gbuild
>
> I could also see us moving the minimal assemblies to the same location
> as #2, for those people interested in them....
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message