Re: Restructuring trunk, then next steps

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

When it comes time to do this clean up and restructure I think we  
should change the base groupId to "org.apache.geronimo.server" and  
the root artifactId to "server" to reflect its new location in svn  
(for consistency) and to allow a clean namespace in the repo between  
the different G sub-projects.

--jason


On Sep 11, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> So, while cleaning up dependencies a bit to try to make separate  
> transaction and connector-deployer configs, I remembered that we  
> have this problem that right now the maven dependencies between  
> modules (jar files) are all to other geronimo jar files, whereas  
> the geronimo dependencies usually need to be to other configs (car  
> files, modules, configurations,.... aren't names fun).  This kinda  
> sucks.  We _could_ try to make the dependency systems line up,  
> which might mean we can simplify both the build and some of our  
> dependency tracking code.... or it might not, but at least there'd  
> only be one set of dependencies.
>
> So the idea is that we'd build a few jar files, then the car file  
> that puts them in the server together with the services we expose  
> from the classes.  The maven dependencies of the car file would be  
> the same as the geronimo classpath for it.  Then the next set of  
> jar files can use the pom from the car project and get the whole  
> set of dependencies.   For the car file using the jar we just  
> built, we'd pull all the maven dependencies from the jar into the  
> car file, either explicitly or by using the geronimo-dependency.xml  
> file or a replacement (such as the pom itself)
>
> At this point it would make sense to organize the build tree by car  
> file.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> > BTW I do think we should rename the dirs to match the maven
>>> > standard geronimo-foo standard.
>>>
>>> I completely agree
>>> >
>>> > -dain
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Fine with me.
>>> >>
>>> >> The tree is still in need of reorganization even after those
>>> >> modules are gone.
>>> >>
>>> >> --jason
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sep 5, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Please don't get mad at me, but I'd like to move a bit slower on
>>> >>> more classification inside of the server module.  I'd like to
>>> >>> pull transaction and connector out to independently versioned
>>> >>> modules and then see if the tree still feels crowded.
>>>
>>> I tend to agree with this too.  One think I have thought briefly
>>> about for years (?!) is separating the builder modules and the
>>> runtime modules.
>>>
>>
>> +1!
>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> <big snip>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>