Early in 2.x development we had one module, as you seem to be recommending. Personally I still think we would be developing 2.x level features without the module structure.
Among the many advantages modules give you are the ability to know where a feature ends, the ability to easily enforce and document limited dependencies between modules, and the ability to have module-level unit tests. We aren't taking very good advantage of most of these, but IMNSHO the extent we have has made development of jboss 3 and 4 conceivable. I think most of the problems you mention are due to incomplete modularization of the original 2.2 or so project. For instance, just now am I removing the last extraneous bits of the tm from the server module (and only in jb4). The other project I have worked with that has adopted a modularized structure similar to jboss has experienced similar gains in development freedom and maintainability. david jencks On 2003.02.27 17:00 Dave Neuer wrote: > > --- Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > > > I agree about the eclipse discussion, but it does > > actually have a point > > for development of the jboss server. It is always a > > pain to get any > > IDE to like our directory layout. > > > > -dain > > > > I would go so far as to say that it is a pain to get a > potential new developer to like the directory layout > as well, and that only with a tool like Eclipse is > does it even begin to feel feasable to a new developer > to navigate the hierarchy of widely dispersed > directories (and identically named classes in > different packages). Especially assuming that that > developer is used to the conventional single > package/directory hierarchy used in most Java > development shops/projects. > > While I can see an advantage for the current layout in > terms of facilitating working on one small piece of > the system, I also think that it adds a great deal of > overhead to grasping the JBoss architecture and makes > finding other source files/packages that might be > relevant more difficult (i.e., "find ../../../ -type d > 'org/jboss/management' -print"). > > Is there some other advantage that the current layout > provides as well? Ant can certainly handle building > and packaging up discreet files from a single > hierarchy so it's not really a build/packaging issue, > right? I could see how one might argue that it makes > concurrent experimental development easier (a la > Bill-AOP/Hiram-AOP) except that that's what CVS > branches are for, right? > > Sorry if this has been covered on the lists or the > forums ad nauseum or if there's consensus that the > current layout is the "right way." > > Dave Neuer > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
