On Sep 5, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I understand your point. I guess I'm conflicted at this point as it seems like Geronimo is becoming a Maven project :-) If the underlying tool is causing such fundamental changes to the way the project is structured, named, etc. is the tool flexible enough?
Fundamental changes to the way the project is structured? Huh? Do you mean that the 'geronimo-' prefix is fundament to structure? Its a naming convention and not related to structure at all.
The structure bits which this email was started for are related to the way that the G project has ended up from a long time with Maven1. And how it would be better to restructure the project to organize components, dependency modules and to take advantage of Maven2 integrated multi-moulde system.
I don't mean to start a rant or a huge debate as I know many people love Maven. I'm just commenting that it seems like were spending more time restructuring Geronimo around Maven than we are developing Geronimo. Seems a bit backwards.
No... we spend way more time making patches and applying them and praying that someone will vote on them than we do developing Geronimo.
And to this point we really have not done much restructuring... only fixing modules to confrom to standards. Now its about how do we organize those modules in the best way to fix into your project.
And I can tell you right now that if you think that they all fit into a nice little "modules" bucket as peers with no hierarchy, that you are on much more crack than I am :-P
--jason
