isis-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Meyer - KMZ" <ke...@kmz.co.za>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Making releases easier and more frequent
Date Sun, 02 Dec 2012 10:13:15 GMT
To express my preferences:

*) Have subdirectories for function, and help in grouping:
e.g.:
core/
security/
viewer/
objectstore/
  inmemory
  jdo
  nosql
  sql
  ...

likewise for viewers, security, etc...

(I think it a little inconsistent to have "viewer-wicket" at the same 
directory level as "core". I think "viewer" should be at the same level as 
"core", but there may be consequences that I am not aware of).

*) Have groupIds grouped by function (as proposed in the wiki 
2012/12/02 10h00 GMT):
o.a.i.viewer,*
o.a.i.objectstore.*

*) Have artifactIds gouped by technology  (as proposed in the wiki 
2012/12/02 10h00 GMT (as proposed in the wiki 2012/12/02 10h00 
GMT):
isis-jdo-*
isis-sql-*
isis-nosql-*

*) If I understand that git does not let you pull subdirectories, then I 
think I would prefer if git repositories were grouped by technology (e.g. 
"sql, jdo",etc for datastores (which would contain the security, etc 
packages). Viewers, etc, are probably not affected, are they? 
Progmodel - maybe, yes (groovy vs default (java)?).
This will let me ignore (e.g. jdo) for as long as I don't need it. Please 
also consider those who may still have to pay per MB, like I used to! ;)

If some of my preferences have inconsistent consequences: e.g. 
directory structure with separate git repositories, please point this out 
and I'll reconsider!!

Regards,
Kevin

On 2 Dec 2012 at 1:18, Giovanni JĂșnior wrote:

> +1, except that for question a) I prefer "isis-jdo-objectstore".
> 
> 
> 2012/12/1 Jeroen van der Wal <jeroen@stromboli.it>
> 
> > Wow, what a useful thread this is, thanks for all the contributions in
> > unraveling Isis (at least for me)!
> >
> > I would go for option a.
> >
> > I even like to take it a step further and move out every component in core
> > (released or not) into it's respective folder. For the JDO objectstore the
> > groupId would org.apache.isis.objectstore and the artifactId isis-
> > objectstore-jdo
> >
> > It's still hard for met to get why things are under core or not and what's
> > used in every deployment (imho equals core) and what is used in
> > development. Given that thought my ideal top-level folder layout would be
> > something like this:
> > core/
> > applib
> > bytecode-cglib
> > bytecode-javassist
> > core
> > runtime
> > development/
> > tck
> > unittestsupport
> > integtestsupport
> > webserver
> > objectstore/
> > inmemory
> > jdo
> > nosql
> > sql
> > xml
> > profilestore/
> > inmemory
> > sql
> > xml
> > progmodel/
> > java
> > groovy
> > wrapper
> > security/
> > ldap
> > sql
> > noop
> > file
> > viewer/
> > bdd
> > junit
> > html
> > dnd
> > restfulobjects
> > scimpi
> > wicket
> > archetype/
> > dnd-xml
> > scimpi-nosql
> > wicket-restful-jdo
> > retired/
> > core/
> > monitoring
> >
> > Still not sure if we need the retired folder though, releasing is all about
> > picking the right combination of modules right?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jeroen
> >

> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ISIS/Make+releases+easier+and+more+frequent



Mime
View raw message