--- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, while cleaning up dependencies a bit to try to make separate > transaction and connector-deployer configs, I remembered that we have > > this problem that right now the maven dependencies between modules > (jar files) are all to other geronimo jar files, whereas the geronimo > > dependencies usually need to be to other configs (car files, modules, > > configurations,.... aren't names fun). This kinda sucks. We _could_ > > try to make the dependency systems line up, which might mean we can > simplify both the build and some of our dependency tracking code.... > > or it might not, but at least there'd only be one set of > dependencies. > > So the idea is that we'd build a few jar files, then the car file > that puts them in the server together with the services we expose > from the classes. The maven dependencies of the car file would be > the same as the geronimo classpath for it. Then the next set of jar > > files can use the pom from the car project and get the whole set of > dependencies. For the car file using the jar we just built, we'd > pull all the maven dependencies from the jar into the car file, > either explicitly or by using the geronimo-dependency.xml file or a > replacement (such as the pom itself) > > At this point it would make sense to organize the build tree by car > file.
+1 thanks Anita > > Thoughts? > > thanks > david jencks > > On Sep 7, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: > > > On 9/7/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Sep 5, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >> > >> > BTW I do think we should rename the dirs to match the maven > >> > standard geronimo-foo standard. > >> > >> I completely agree > >> > > >> > -dain > >> > > >> > On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: > >> > > >> >> Fine with me. > >> >> > >> >> The tree is still in need of reorganization even after those > >> >> modules are gone. > >> >> > >> >> --jason > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Please don't get mad at me, but I'd like to move a bit slower > on > >> >>> more classification inside of the server module. I'd like to > >> >>> pull transaction and connector out to independently versioned > >> >>> modules and then see if the tree still feels crowded. > >> > >> I tend to agree with this too. One think I have thought briefly > >> about for years (?!) is separating the builder modules and the > >> runtime modules. > >> > > > > +1! > > > >> thanks > >> david jencks > >> <big snip> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
