You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> on 2006/06/08 15:58:20 UTC
C++ release distribution zip and layout
In the Tuscany C++ source tree we have a subproject for SDO and one for SCA
(which prereqs the SDO build). For a binary release should we combine the
build output into a single zip ro have a separate SDO zip?
If we do combine them we have a further option of the unzipped layout having
a separate structure for SDO and SCA:
<unzipdir>/tuscany/sca/ (bin, include, samples etc.) <unzipdir>/tuscany/sdo/
(bin, include, samples etc.)
This is the way it is now and is the easiest to continue with but we could
combine the 2 into
<unzipdir>/tuscany/ (bin, include, samples etc.)
Any thoughts?
My personal preference is to keep them separate as the sdo could be used
standalone.
--
Pete
Re: C++ release distribution zip and layout
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Pete,
Sorry that I missed this the first time around. I think keeping
them separate is best, either in separate zip files or in separate
directories within a single installation. Separate zip files seems
slightly more work as it increases the installation testing needed
to ensure that both the SDO standalone case and the SCA+SDO case
install and run OK. However it does provide more flexibility for
users as you say.
Simon
Pete Robbins wrote:
> OK... as I need to start on this several days ago I'm going to produce
> seeparate zips for SDO and SCA.
>
>
> On 08/06/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> In the Tuscany C++ source tree we have a subproject for SDO and one for
>> SCA (which prereqs the SDO build). For a binary release should we combine
>> the build output into a single zip ro have a separate SDO zip?
>>
>> If we do combine them we have a further option of the unzipped layout
>> having a separate structure for SDO and SCA:
>>
>> <unzipdir>/tuscany/sca/ (bin, include, samples etc.)
>> <unzipdir>/tuscany/sdo/
>> (bin, include, samples etc.)
>>
>> This is the way it is now and is the easiest to continue with but we
>> could
>> combine the 2 into
>> <unzipdir>/tuscany/ (bin, include, samples etc.)
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> My personal preference is to keep them separate as the sdo could be used
>> standalone.
>>
>> --
>> Pete
>>
>
>
>
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: C++ release distribution zip and layout
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
OK... as I need to start on this several days ago I'm going to produce
seeparate zips for SDO and SCA.
On 08/06/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> In the Tuscany C++ source tree we have a subproject for SDO and one for
> SCA (which prereqs the SDO build). For a binary release should we combine
> the build output into a single zip ro have a separate SDO zip?
>
> If we do combine them we have a further option of the unzipped layout
> having a separate structure for SDO and SCA:
>
> <unzipdir>/tuscany/sca/ (bin, include, samples etc.) <unzipdir>/tuscany/sdo/
> (bin, include, samples etc.)
>
> This is the way it is now and is the easiest to continue with but we could
> combine the 2 into
> <unzipdir>/tuscany/ (bin, include, samples etc.)
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> My personal preference is to keep them separate as the sdo could be used
> standalone.
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
Pete