manifoldcf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MCF 2.x binary package directory structure
Date Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:01:15 GMT
Hi Abe-san,

Some comments:

(1) I don't understand what you mean by, "because build.xml in framework is
currently too long to include class
paths in lib".  Can you clarify?

(2) Some of these suggestions seem to be making distinctions between files
and directories that I don't understand the reason for.  For example: "in
process-single directory we can
create lib dir(for jetty jars), lib/ext dir(for logger jars), resource
dir(for logging.ini) and etc dir(for jetty.xml)."  Why separate jars in
this way?  They are all necessary at the root level to run the example.  I
would not understand where to add a new jar with this arrangement because
the meaning of the directories is unclear.

(3) I agree with "connector-specific-processes" and "plugins".  But other
hierarchy additions seem less helpful, such as hiding the examples under
additional levels of hierarchy.  I think it should be possible immediately
for a user to see what examples are available.  But maybe we could change
the names to be clearer.

(4) Rather than group together xxx and xxx-proprietary, and yyy and
yyy-proprietary, it would be more appropriate to have a "proprietary"
directory and an "open" directory", with xxx and yyy under them.

(5) Putting version numbers on jars is difficult in some cases, especially
in construction of start.jar, because the ant methods for constructing
start.jar are poor.  The version of each jar would need to be defined
globally in the ant build, and included whenever the jar is referenced.

Karl

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message