jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Russell <w...@paulrussell.org>
Subject Re: Welcome to Apache Jackrabbit
Date Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:27:08 GMT

On 13 Sep 2004, at 11:43, Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:47:56 -0700, Roy T. Fielding 
> <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> The code itself needs to be migrated from slide cvs to subversion.
>> When that happens (probably sometime today/tomorrow, assuming I get
>> the request to infrastructure tonight), it will be located at
>>    https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jackrabbit/trunk
> what do you think of "org.apache.jackrabbit.jcr.*" for the ri and
> "org.apache.jackrabbit.tck.*" for the tck? any better ideas?

+1. I'm happy with this, as a starting point at least. My guess is that 
the structure of the project as a whole, and therefore the package 
hierarchy is likely to evolve significantly over the next few months as 
we all set scope & strategy and get acquainted. The good news is that 
since we're using SVN, it's not like it's a nightmare to change the 
package names if we need to, particularly prior to the 1.0 release.

> as the package structure needs to be changed (and the code needs to be
> refactored to reflect the new package structure), i would volunteer to
> refactor the code first and commit it to svn. does anybody object?

Absolutely fine by me.

> btw, what should i do with the 'old' proposal code in the slide cvs?
> if nobody has any objections, i will remove 
> jakarta-slide/proposals/jcrri
> (it will still be accessible in the attic).

Again, that sounds reasonable. Let's not leave 'JCR droppings' 
everywhere, eh? ;)

> tim reilly has suggested a while ago that the jcrri project should be
> 'mavenized'.
> he has also offered to help convert the current project setup to maven 
> style.
> i think now would be a perfect opportunity to do the conversion.
> any comments/objections?

I'm +1 on this, with the major caveat that I /do not/ want this to 
become a big debate. If people have strong reservations about using 
Maven, I'd rather we postponed the discussion until we have more 
evidence either way as to the worth of it in this project.

Personally, I like Maven, and have used it on a few projects. In 
general, these have been things that have complex dependancies, or have 
lots of 'modules' contained within the umbrella project. It seems to 
work well, although I acknowledge that it has become a bit of a beast.

Can I make a suggestion?
* If everyone is happy with using Maven for the time being, then lets 
do so and see how it goes.
* If people have strong reservations, then can I suggest we at least 
adopt the same project higheracy? This would allow us to easily switch 
to maven later if we decided to do so, and would imply a higheracy that 
looks something like:
	* main java source -> src/java
	* main resources -> src/resources
	* test java source -> src/test
	* test resources -> src/test-data
	* main compile target -> target/classes
	* test compile target -> target/test-classes
	* distributions -> target/distributions

I should be able to help Tim with this also: I'm not hugely experienced 
with the 'site' side of maven, but have done basic work with it.

Paul Russell

View raw message