xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Theodore W. Leung" <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: Dirlayout
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:57:02 GMT
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 15:01, Donald_Leslie@lotus.com wrote:
> 
> My preliminary reaction:
> I agree that a common directory layout is a very good idea, but it appears
> to me that we are talking about 3 layouts:
>      1. the repository
>      2. the distribution
>      3. the website
> 
> 1. The repository is under CVS. IMO it should not include any files
> generated by the project's Ant build. So distributed doc and website doc
> (whether identical or not) should not be in the repository. I think the
> repository should include a tools dir, not a build dir, for binaries
> required to do the build.

No file that is generated by another program should be in the
repository. Period.

> 2. As the jakarta document acknowledges, many distributions include a
> source distribution and a binary distribution. I agree that the source
> distribution should mimic the repository. I do not think it should include
> generated doc. For that, the user runs the build or downloads the binary
> distribution. I think the binary distribution should include JARs and the
> generated doc. I do not think it makes sense to include the class tree.
> That makes the download more cumbersome and duplicates what is already in
> the JARs.

I think that this follows from the above.

> When the user runs an Ant build, then I think the results should be put in
> a build tree. I think it is a good idea not to overwrite the binary
> distribution (assuming the user downloaded it). I prefer build/ to bin/.
> for this build tree. In response to a question that was raised, the build
> tree does include a number of "intermediate" files that are not required in
> the binary distribution (such as a class tree, which the user can get by
> expanding the JAR).



> I see no reason for dist/. This is not in the repository and the user gets
> it by downloading and expanding the distribution. Likewise not reason for a
> separate docs/ tree somehow distinct from the website. If the distributed
> doc is different, the user gets it by downloading and expanding the binary
> distribution file, or by downloading the source distribution and running a
> build.
> 
> 3. We need a directory tree to hold the website (docs and docs/api). I
> don't think we should put any of this in CVS. The jakarta proposal appears
> to put the docs generated from XML in the repository but not the api doc.
> As long as we are copying the javadoc to the website (or to a staging
> area?), we might as well do the same with the other doc.

Like I said - I don't see any reason for any generated files to be in
the repository.  As far as the website goes, I'd like to see something
like a background ANT task that would checkout whatever is required to
build the website (all sub project websites, including JavaDoc) and
build it.  Getting rid of the manual copy step is a must.  The old
situation where we had the html output of stylebook checked into the
repository is is also bad news.

> I'm sure I'll have more to say (hopefully helpful!) as this discussion
> continues.
> 
> -- Don Leslie
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message