Mailing-List: contact river-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <470CA616.2060802@dcrdev.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:14:46 +0100
From: Dan Creswell <dan@dcrdev.demon.co.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build file question
References: <470B7358.3020404@cheiron.org>
 <570DF8B0-FAFF-40F6-86AD-E684B847CF2B@sun.com> <470BC3E7.8080200@cheiron.org>
In-Reply-To: <470BC3E7.8080200@cheiron.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Frank Barnaby wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
>>
>>> 2) I noticed that the binary distribution doesn't contain the examples,
>>> is this intentional? It is my understanding that the source distribution
>>> is for those who want to build the project and the binary distribution
>>> is for those who want to run the project with no intention to build it.
>>> Therefore IMHO it seem logical the examples are part of the binary
>>> distribution.
>>
>>
>> The binary and source distributions in their current state represent an
>> initial attempt to separate the two types of bundles.  We're now at a
>> point were the community can discuss what should or should not go into
>> those bundles.
>>
>> Let's start with the examples.  It makes perfect sense to add the
>> examples
>> to the binary distribution, but the details need to be discussed.  Since
>> the examples originally existed in the source component of the Jini
>> distribution, and the source tree does not currently exist in the binary
>> distribution, we'll need to relocate the examples directory for at least
>> the binary bundle.  Is it reasonable to place the examples tree in the
>> top-level of the binary distribution (includes example src, doc, and
>> jars)?
>>
>> If it is decided to locate the examples in the top-level of the binary
>> distribution, I'd be tempted to do the same for the source distribution
>> for the sake of consistency.  However, that would probably include
>> removing
>> the example tree from the depths of the source tree, which I seem to
>> recall
>> as an unresolved consideration in the past.
> 
> I agree, there might be a reorganization necessary and this shouldn't be
> done for AR1, but given the consequences I also question whether the
> separation between a src and bin distribution is a benefit compared to
> the combined distribution there was in the past.

So over in Blitz land there are a number of users that don't care for
the source and just want to "use the damn thing".  A few download source
out of curiousity and some cos they want to offer patches (yes, there
are a few!).

In JSTK's case it might be worth asking the community how many of them
have ever looked at the src part of the distribution and how many just
download the JSTK, maybe read the docs and examples and then go start it
up and try and write their own code......

Cheers,

Dan.