Sounds like a great idea folks. Since I will not have cycles to contribute any work a +0.
Suresh On May 7, 2013, at 9:28 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 makes sense to me. We've got time so lets update for 0.3... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 7, 2013, at 1:46 AM, "Martin Desruisseaux" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Chris >> >> Le 07/05/13 01:20, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) a écrit : >>> +1, but we should probably make all top level dirs consistent like this >>> then too, right? >> >> In this proposal, the presence or absence of "sis-" prefix in directory name >> would not be determined by whether the directory is top-level or not, but >> rather by whether the directory is for a module producing a JAR file or is >> just a container for such sub-modules. Or in other words, it would be >> determined by whether the directory is a leaf in the modules tree or not. >> Only leaves would have "sis-" prefix. >> >> In terms of Maven pom.xml, this would be determined by the <packaging> >> element. "pom" packaging would have no "sis-" prefix, because they produce >> nothing by themselves. "jar", "bundle" and "maven-plugin" packaging would >> have the "sis-" prefix. >> >> If nevertheless we want to have top-level directories that looks like >> consistent, one possible approach could be to group the current top-level >> modules (except the "app" ones) in a "core" group. So the hierarchy could be >> like below: >> >> core >> - sis-utility >> - sis-metadata >> - sis-referencing >> - sis-coverage >> - ... >> storage >> - sis-shapefile >> - sis-geotiff >> - sis-postgis >> - sis-netcdf >> - ... >> client >> - sis-wms >> - sis-wfs >> - sis-csw >> - ... >> application >> - sis-app >> - sis-webapp >> - ... >> >> >> So the "core" which existed in SIS 0.2 would be back, but as a group of >> modules rather than a single one. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Martin >>
