Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 31339 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2006 17:28:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Feb 2006 17:28:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 91230 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2006 17:28:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 91169 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2006 17:28:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 91156 invoked by uid 99); 28 Feb 2006 17:28:32 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:28:32 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [212.27.42.29] (HELO smtp3-g19.free.fr) (212.27.42.29) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:28:32 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.1] (gou06-1-82-224-99-120.fbx.proxad.net [82.224.99.120]) by smtp3-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFB84801D for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:28:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4404882A.5060903@apache.org> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:28:10 +0100 From: Remy Maucherat User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: Tomcat 6 source organisation References: <44047528.9040708@apache.org> <96e4b5230602280844l31857b72pbf60fcf17194d343@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <96e4b5230602280844l31857b72pbf60fcf17194d343@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Costin Manolache wrote: > Why would you want to change ant ??? I don't, I am asking questions. > Re. source folders versus modules - we can have both of them, it's not > exclusive. > Single source tree makes it easy to navigate, more IDE-friendly, etc. > The build file can compile as many modules as needed - either by compiling a > subset of the tree, or by compiling the entire tree and generating > several modules. Yes, I know. > IMO it is a bad practice to scatter sources around without very good reason. > JDK sources don't seem to be scattered in modules like 'io', 'net', > but in packages, > and modules for platform-specific stuff. > > Having a single source tree would also greatly simplify the ant file, > and with eclipse > it can completely skip the compilation task ( i.e. if the ant file > uses the same build/classes > dir as eclipse, it'll detect the already-compiled classes and just > create the jars, while > eclipse can keep the source updated on save ). Obviously, the build script would be far far simpler. Personally, I am also in favor of a single source tree, since it's simply much easier to work with. R�my --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org