river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Date Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:54:51 GMT

The only reason I raised my alternate structure was to give you an  
opportunity to easily change things before they are set. The  
structure can be changed in future if the need arises after a  
discussion as to the merits.


On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Jim Hurley wrote:

> Hi all-
> Not sure if there was consensus on this...   so just doing a quick
> double check that we've got agreement.  Based on most of the
> responses, folks seemed to support Frank's proposal of sticking
> with the JTSK repository structure (and moving serviceui to fit in).
> There was an alternate structure proposed (adding one additional
> level of src) by Craig Russell:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-river-dev/ 
> 200705.mbox/%3c01F7F559-6C4A-48B4-A518-2512D8BE195F@SUN.com%3e>
> That's certainly a reasonable idea, but doing so will break the
> build (whether that would need to get fixed prior to or after  
> import is
> another question).
> So...  let's approach it this way --  our default plan is to stick
> with the jtsk repository for initial import.  If you agree, feel
> free to respond with a +1 or just stay happily silent.  If you're
> against this approach (and prefer Craig's proposal or another),
> please respond with a -1 (and your ideas).
> We're anxious to get this in (today if possible) -- so **please**
> give it some immediate consideration.
> thanks much -Jim
> On May 30, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
> :
>> :
>> While we're on the subject, I have a question regarding the SVN  
>> repository
>> structure.  Once we're ready to upload to SVN, we're going to need  
>> a plan
>> for the repository layout or does such a plan already exist?  If  
>> not, I'd
>> imagine the JTSK repository would basically look like the following:
>> 	trunk/jtsk/
>> 		build.xml
>> 		build_common.xml
>> 		doc/
>> 		src/
>> Or should we be more consistent with the current serviceui  
>> repository?
>> 	trunk/serviceui/
>> 		doc/
>> 		com/
>> 		net/
>> If it's decided the the jtsk repository is to be consistent with  
>> the serviceui
>> repository (ie, move jtsk/src/* up one level), the ant scripts  
>> will be initially
>> broken but could be fixed in short order as one of the initial  
>> development tasks.
>> Alternatively, the serviceui repository could be changed to be  
>> consistent with
>> the jtsk repository...  At first glance, this approach seems like  
>> it would be
>> more straight forward.

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message