Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/27/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the reasons for going with a modular structure in the first place
was to make the totality more manageable while still being able to
develop each module. For small projects I would agree it is probably not
worth it, but most large distributed projects have gone that way: look
at HTTPD + mod_*, Tomcat + commons-*, Maven + plugins, Eclipse +
plugins, ...
The community is asking for subsets of functionality - we should use the
module structure to give it to them rather than waiting for a release at
the global level (especially with the overhead of certification testing).
Are you now talking about what should be distributed to users as
opposed to the dir structure of the SVN repo? Or are you talking about
the two as one in the same (i.e. certain subsets of the project should
be reflected in the SVN repo dir structure, not hidden in the build
scripts)?
The two are related as we are already generating artifact jars for each
of the modules that fit the functions that people are asking for (e.g.
transaction, connector). All I am really saying is that we should have
stable/unstable versions at the module level so that they know which
ones are safe to use. The structure I proposed does this but also allows
someone to easily check out and build an entire stable or unstable tree.
This also applies to us - for example, transaction is not changing so
rather than build from a SNAPSHOT all the time we could use a known
version. This would cut the build time too :-)
--
Jeremy
