One note on the plugin - with the re-org the build order would succeed if you built core first - the tooling - then everything else since nothing in core requires the plugin
P On 7/28/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/28/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I put together a basic plan (with some help from Guillaume), here > > http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/Source+Structure > > The purpose of the new structure it two allow cleaner separation between: > > 1/ The JBI Container > 2/ Deployables such as shared libraries/BC's/SE's > 3/ Platform specific packaging projects > 4/ Archetypes > 5/ Tooling > 6/ Sampels > > By categorizing the source it should become easier to read and therefore > identifying what SE/BC's/SL's are available should become more > obvious, as > well as cleanly showing what is required for core Container functionality. > > There are a couple of ommissions - first rather than one assembly > (currently > apache-servicemix project) I would like to add a root directories called > assemblies and then create a few packaging (as previously mentioned) > > ie. > > assemblies > \ core-only > \ core-and-components > etc. +1 to this reorg The question is wether we will release everything at the same time or not. Currently, the problem is that we need to build the maven plugin in a first step, else maven will not pick it while building the whole source tree. We could avoid that if we could release the plugin, then use it to build the source tree (as done in Geronimo). But the maven plugin needs the core container before :( The other is the servicemix-components package, there are two ways to go > here: > > 1/ Break up the components into different service engines Or break the components jar into different jars. This would allow to replace all optional dependencies by non optional dependencies and the maven plugin could be used to generate SU and bundle all the necessary dependencies. 2/ Turn the servicemix-components jar into an SE, add a dependencies on the > servicemix-lwcontainer and then change all the libs to optional false > > I'm not keen on the first way because I think the conversion to real SE's > will take some time and should be given space to make sure we are able to > address things like WSDL for services etc. > > In the second option we end up with a large SE though I believe it will > provide all the functionality, I was thinknig that this would be a > special > packaging - ie. your can download just that big SE separate from the other > assemblies. Yeah, maybe. We need to rewrite the examples to be less focused on servicemix-lwcontainer. I would like to try and get a discussion going on this since once this is > out of the way we could then look to the work invovled in converting some > of > the lw-container service engines into more complete JBI Service Engines > (using the service-engine architype as a basis) and also work on puting > more > WSDL in place for those services :) +1 P > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
