> Why a sub-project of core? It's a separate, optional jar, like
> shale-tiger. I think it belongs in shale/designtime as its own
> module.
I agree ... and, if I understood you correctly, switching to a Maven build
will require not only this, but also splitting up core into separate modules
for each deliverable artifact, right?
Given that, I don't see the need to create hierarchical Maven projects
unless there is some compelling advantage we get on inheriting dependencies
from parent poms or something.
My understanding of the "maven way" is that you need a separate dir
for each artifact. Whether you nest them or make them dirs on the
same "level" is up to you.
IMO the designtime artifact is dependent on the core-library. You
would never release one without the other so a hierarchy makes sense.
We do this in myfaces as well. We have tomahawk/core and
tomahawk/examples. The top level tomahawk module is just a simple pom
that binds the subprojects together.
So I suggest in svn we have:
struts/struts-shale/core-library/trunk/src
struts/struts-shale/core-library/trunk/designtime/src
If you make a branch for core library you would use:
struts/struts-shale/core-library/branches/1_0_4/src
struts/struts-shale/core-library/branches/1_0_4/designtime/src
But we're going to do the separation thing anyway, right, even if we don't
release separately?
I can certainly see a case for something like the test framework being
releasable separately.
Its more important that designtime be nested inside core-library if
you do this. Otherwise you will end up creating two branches
everytime
struts/struts-shale/core-library/branches/1_0_4/src
struts/struts-shale/core-designtime/branches/1_0_4/src
It's not causing a problem now because nobody has asked for a high priority
bug fix or feature enhancement, who is not also willing to wait for another
Shale omnibus release.
This is a mixed bag. It certainly complicates things when you want to
release a bunch of things at once. You need to create, maintain and
merge a few different branches instead of one. On the other hand ...
it gives you the flexability to release more often.
So far this is working to our advantage in MyFaces. Its a hassle to
make the branches but there's a lot less code to test when you're just
releasing tomahawk (instead of tomahawk + core.)
My vote is for the extra flexability
Craig
Sean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
