Flat structure like spec sounds good.
Would there also be a common tranql-parent POM, or would they all use
genesis?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
2009/9/22 Jack Cai <greensi...@gmail.com <mailto:greensi...@gmail.com>>
I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently
all the vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we
are going to put them under the same folder, shall we bump them to
the same version?
So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update all
the vendors' version?
Since the vendor wrappers are not built together, there is no need for
them to have the same version.
I was actually thinking further of:
- combining connector and connector-ra into a folder, perhaps "generic"
- removing the "vendors" folder and having generic, derby, db2,
postgres,.... next to one another.
But even if we keep the vendors folder the versions don't have to be
related.
thanks
david jencks
-Rex
-Jack
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks
<david_jen...@yahoo.com <mailto:david_jen...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization
and just bit myself by not being careful enough to check the
extent of the changes IDEA made. I'd like to reorganize svn
to make life clearer and simpler.
1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself
which is not really under active development at the moment,
and the j2ca connector framework which occasionally gets
tweaked. I'd like to separate them.
2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our
experience in the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has
no problem with separately versioned subprojects all under trunk.
So, I'd like to propose
ql/
+/branches
+/tags
+/trunk
ra/
+/branches
+/tags
+/trunk
Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the
individual vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing
tags will cause problems?
thanks
david jencks
