You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shiro.apache.org by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> on 2009/01/03 19:18:52 UTC
Project Directory Structure
I'd like to see if everone's ok with the following directory structure,
without talking about build tools if possible. I don't think we're anywhere
near consensus on the build tool issue at the moment, which is why I'd like
to leave it out at the moment.
trunk/
|--build.xml
|--core/
| |--src/
| |--test/
|--web/
| |--src/
| |--test/
|--support/
| |--spring/
| | |--src/
| | |--test/
| |--ehcache/
| | |--src/
| | |--test/
I don't think anyone would disagree that this is easier to understand than
the current fileset 'extraction' that is currently being used to pull out
core vs web vs ehcache code. It is an improvement on the way things are
today in any event, no matter what build tool will be used in the future.
If that is the case, it shouldn't be a problem to institute now and if we
need to change it later after a build tool is agreed upon (add a few more
directories, whatever), we can do that at that time.
I'd hate to see an "all or nothing" mentality (name + directory structure +
build tool) stagnating our project's momentum and progress...
Can we at least reach concensus on this intermediate step?
Regards,
Les
Re: Project Directory Structure
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Done - please do an SVN update. I still have some very minor tweaks to do
with the build file later this evening (I have to run out), but it won't
take long. The ant build does run successfully though.
Cheers,
Les
Duh. Ok. Let's run with this. The only "negative" comments were
> suggestions to align it more closely to Maven. This is a good intermediate
> step when and if we do fully embrace it.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
Re: Project Directory Structure
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 3, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to see if everone's ok with the following directory
>> structure,
>>> without talking about build tools if possible. I don't think we're
>>> anywhere
>>> near consensus on the build tool issue at the moment, which is why
>>> I'd
>>> like
>>> to leave it out at the moment.
>>>
>>
>> It was my understanding that we would have both Ant/Ivy and Maven.
>
>
> I was just leaving that to be discussed in the other thread where you
> originated the discussion.
>
>
>>
>>
>> trunk/
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> Looks ok to me. What happened to the Quartz directory?
>
>
> Oh it will still be there. My apologies - I should have put an
> ellipsis to
> indicate that the support directory would continue, one subdirectory
> per 3rd
> party integration effort. ehcache, crowd, quartz, etc...
Duh. Ok. Let's run with this. The only "negative" comments were
suggestions to align it more closely to Maven. This is a good
intermediate step when and if we do fully embrace it.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Project Directory Structure
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> I'd like to see if everone's ok with the following directory structure,
>> without talking about build tools if possible. I don't think we're
>> anywhere
>> near consensus on the build tool issue at the moment, which is why I'd
>> like
>> to leave it out at the moment.
>>
>
> It was my understanding that we would have both Ant/Ivy and Maven.
I was just leaving that to be discussed in the other thread where you
originated the discussion.
>
>
> trunk/
>> ...
>>
>
> Looks ok to me. What happened to the Quartz directory?
Oh it will still be there. My apologies - I should have put an ellipsis to
indicate that the support directory would continue, one subdirectory per 3rd
party integration effort. ehcache, crowd, quartz, etc...
Re: Project Directory Structure
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> I'd like to see if everone's ok with the following directory
> structure,
> without talking about build tools if possible. I don't think we're
> anywhere
> near consensus on the build tool issue at the moment, which is why
> I'd like
> to leave it out at the moment.
It was my understanding that we would have both Ant/Ivy and Maven.
> trunk/
> |--build.xml
> |--core/
> | |--src/
> | |--test/
> |--web/
> | |--src/
> | |--test/
> |--support/
> | |--spring/
> | | |--src/
> | | |--test/
> | |--ehcache/
> | | |--src/
> | | |--test/
>
> I don't think anyone would disagree that this is easier to
> understand than
> the current fileset 'extraction' that is currently being used to
> pull out
> core vs web vs ehcache code. It is an improvement on the way things
> are
> today in any event, no matter what build tool will be used in the
> future.
>
> If that is the case, it shouldn't be a problem to institute now and
> if we
> need to change it later after a build tool is agreed upon (add a few
> more
> directories, whatever), we can do that at that time.
>
> I'd hate to see an "all or nothing" mentality (name + directory
> structure +
> build tool) stagnating our project's momentum and progress...
>
> Can we at least reach concensus on this intermediate step?
Looks ok to me. What happened to the Quartz directory?
Regards,
Alan
Re: Project Directory Structure
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
> While the inclusion of build.xml implies ant and the lack of detail
> below */src and */test make this a bit incomplete this looks fine and
> a definite improvement over the current organization.
+1
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: Project Directory Structure
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
While the inclusion of build.xml implies ant and the lack of detail
below */src and */test make this a bit incomplete this looks fine and
a definite improvement over the current organization.
thanks
david jencks
On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> I'd like to see if everone's ok with the following directory
> structure,
> without talking about build tools if possible. I don't think we're
> anywhere
> near consensus on the build tool issue at the moment, which is why
> I'd like
> to leave it out at the moment.
>
> trunk/
> |--build.xml
> |--core/
> | |--src/
> | |--test/
> |--web/
> | |--src/
> | |--test/
> |--support/
> | |--spring/
> | | |--src/
> | | |--test/
> | |--ehcache/
> | | |--src/
> | | |--test/
>
> I don't think anyone would disagree that this is easier to
> understand than
> the current fileset 'extraction' that is currently being used to
> pull out
> core vs web vs ehcache code. It is an improvement on the way things
> are
> today in any event, no matter what build tool will be used in the
> future.
>
> If that is the case, it shouldn't be a problem to institute now and
> if we
> need to change it later after a build tool is agreed upon (add a few
> more
> directories, whatever), we can do that at that time.
>
> I'd hate to see an "all or nothing" mentality (name + directory
> structure +
> build tool) stagnating our project's momentum and progress...
>
> Can we at least reach concensus on this intermediate step?
>
> Regards,
>
> Les