Hi!
> No, part of the problem before was that people went into JBoss and looked
> for the metadata.
> If you keep the name this *really* doesn't make sense, please explain your
> "practical".
Good point. I will change to "org.jboss.metadata.ejbfacet".
> I am frankly puzzled by the "code in EJX CVS module"... the metadata of
the
> container belongs to EJX the GUI (??????????)
It is more practical to develop and build that way. The classes go into
ejxjboss.jar anyway (not jboss.jar). Note that the package naming would
still place it in the org.jboss core.
> |If you have any more questions on this let me know. It will probably take
a
> |couple of days next week to get everything in place. I will not
> |commit right
> |away but rather make a zip of the new source available, so that
developers
> |can check it out and confirm that it looks ok.
>
> Well tag the files, and work on CVS, even though I yell hard because I
don't
> want the user base to be thrown off for weeks, you have our trust so put
> your stuff in the tree.
I do not want the normal users to be in no-mans-land during this phase, so I
will figure out how to do CVS branches first. That will allow this to be
done in parallel and merged in at the last possible point in time.
> |This is a big change, but it will make our life much easier, or at least
> |that was the idea :-)
>
> apart from the place where we find the code (put the stuff under jboss,
not
> under EJX) it sounds fancy indeed, but I repeat that all I care about is
> that it's stable.
Indeed. As above, the classes are in org.jboss, but not in JBoss core CVS. I
might move these classes to JBoss core when it is done though, although I
think the only reason would be to "keep them together". From a practical
point of view it is better to keep it in the EJX CVS module, as motivated
above.
regards,
Rickard
