Sorry, silly mental mixup, you don't build jar files from the source
tree. But I still think it's odd to have java classes under some other
separate tree. But on the other hand it would convey very differently
that these classes are "different" and not part of what you would
actually want to change when you're fixing bugs/adding features.
If anyone else has thoughts, let me know. I could go either way on this
one...
David
David Van Couvering wrote:
Hm, it seems a little odd to have Java classes somewhere other than
under "java". Doesn't it make it significantly harder to build jar
files? Can't the 'clobber' task take care of pruning the 'generated'
directory?
David
Rick Hillegas (JIRA) wrote:
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-289?page=comments#action_12415437
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-289:
-------------------------------------
A small refinement:
I'd like to see the generated files go under a subdirectory parallel
to classes and java. The generated subtree can be wholesale whacked
when you clobber your workspace.
Enable code sharing between Derby client and engine
---------------------------------------------------
Key: DERBY-289
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-289
Project: Derby
Type: Improvement
Components: Network Client
Versions: 10.0.2.1, 10.0.2.0, 10.0.2.2, 10.1.1.0
Environment: N/A
Reporter: David Van Couvering
Assignee: David Van Couvering
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 10.2.0.0
Attachments: DERBY-289.diff
Right now, there is no way for the Derby network client to share code
with the Derby engine. We should have a separate jar file, e.g.
derby_common.jar, that contains shared code and is used by both the
client and the engine.
