Hi Emmanuel, On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/28/11 4:50 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> >> Hi all, > > comments in line. >> >> Shared has grown somewhat and I think it will grow more as we tack on >> more protocol additions and functionality. I was thinking of using >> some project module hierarchy to try to establish some organization we >> can grow with. >> >> Here's what I was thinking: >> >> shared/ >> i18n/ >> util/ >> integ/ >> asn1/ >> api/ >> ber/ >> dsml/ >> parser/ >> engine/ >> ldap/ >> codec/ >> model/ >> schema/ >> schema-converter/ > > wouldn't it be better to make it a sub-module ?
Yes these are all sub modules. >> >> client-api/ >> codec-standalone/ >> all/ > > Shouldn't it be a separated module ? Hmm I don't quite understand you here. These are all separate modules broken down for better hierarchical organization. Could you be a bit more specific, I want to make sure I understand you fully. Thanks. >> >> protocol/ >> mina/ >> extras/ >> aci/ >> sp/ >> trigger/ >> util/ >> archetype/ > > What is this module about ? The archetype module? It contains some Maven archetypes for rapidly setting up new extension oriented maven projects. Like for example an archetype to start a new control project or a new ext req/resp pair. >> >> control/ >> extended/ >> schema/ >> codec/ >> api/ >> plugin/ >> >> The deepest level is 5 and we'd concat levels into the names as we >> kind of do already. Here is the very last node, >> shared-ldap-extras-codec-plugin, as an example of the artifactId >> composition standard. >> >> Thoughts? > > Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to that. Regards, Alex
