Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hcunico@gmail.com designates
 209.85.146.180 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ODnzwbcozySJRqTSh+TpPRWQHgI/okqUeITzhYfEHx4YBwT9Kek35A8wERr17eES8M/NU16LfCDFP3YfVaE2RSPu+JN5F2AmsI9vyzNpRLx4ZHwX/lup9TqghNzt+iUruykjKtJwVIdWa9szQ6a5rVtZl1qu/luFzT9eQenXgd8=
Message-ID: <47C71446.1090708@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:06:30 -0500
From: Hernan Cunico <hcunico@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: /lib vs /repository
References: <47C474DF.5010307@gmail.com>
	 <1b5bfeb50802261549ne2c5625x42661c57ad327ddf@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47C70FB6.50008@gmail.com>
 <1b5bfeb50802281156q18d63e9r58ade24603938269@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1b5bfeb50802281156q18d63e9r58ade24603938269@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Hernan Cunico <hcunico@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, any reason why we don't follow a similar dir structure as in the repo?
> 
> Good question! Perhaps because it's easier to make a single directory
> with the minimum files in it and don't bother with the long-ish paths.
> Can't see any other reason as simplicity. On the other hand, one could

but we have

./lib/
     + boot/
     + endorsed/
     + gshell/

which it is not entirely flat. 

So it would seem to me that either way we could make some changes here to either make it really flat or consistent with the repo. Just a thought, but I think it would help make the things look more clear.

Cheers!
Hernan

> argue it's harder to maintain but since we build Geronimo with maven
> we don't really bother with it as Maven takes care of it. Hope I'm not
> mistaken.
> 
> I see it that you can have the bare framework with the single lib
> directory. Now, the question is what part of Geronimo introduces the
> repository dir? If it's something that's not needed for the
> framework's work you get the picture - you don't need to worry about
> repository directory as it's outside the framework. The framework uses
> lib and others can do whatever they want. If it's not the case, well,
> we could think of pros and cons moving them to repository then.
> 
> Jacek
>