You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Thomas Bernhard <tb...@yahoo.com> on 2007/10/23 17:22:35 UTC
Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Why do some subdirectories have the "-unpublished" suffix?
Is it still needed?
(to me, this just makes the directories longer).
Thanx,
Tom.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-the-%22unpublished%22-suffix--tf4678111.html#a13366360
Sent from the Cayenne - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Nov 4, 2007, at 3:53 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> It might still be easier to have cayenne-core and cayenne-jdk1.[x
> +1] at all times.
> That avoids us having to move 99% of the code to a new project and
> update all the maven paths,
Doesn't matter to me much... the current module names are self
explanatory, but otherwise no difference. Every time we increment the
base JDK version, we'd have to merge one of the modules anyways. E.g.
right now we can either merge jdk1.4 to jdk1.5 or do it in the
opposite direction and rename jdk1.4 folder once it's done. Regarding
maven - only two poms need to be updated. Also one Eclipse project
will have to be removed from workspace.
> plus all the Confluence docs every time a JDK update is required.
Exported docs are located in "cayenne/docs/doc" folder, so those are
not affected by the merge.
> Although I guess with the right svn commands the history of all the
> files will be preserved however we move things around, so it
> shouldn't matter too much.
Right.
Andrus
Re: Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@maniatis.org>.
It might still be easier to have cayenne-core and cayenne-jdk1.[x+1]
at all times. That avoids us having to move 99% of the code to a new
project and update all the maven paths, plus all the Confluence docs
every time a JDK update is required.
Although I guess with the right svn commands the history of all the
files will be preserved however we move things around, so it
shouldn't matter too much.
Ari
On 24/10/2007, at 5:39 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I think no - somehow I feel there will be "cayenne-jdk1.6-
> unpublished" in a not so distant future.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24/10/2007, at 2:15 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>>
>>> It's to differentiate between assemblies that are published as
>>> JARs and
>>> those that are used simply to build larger assemblies that are
>>> published as
>>> JARs.
>>
>> Now that 1.4 and 1.5 are being merged, do we want to rename that
>> project cayenne-core?
>>
>> Ari
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------->
>> Aristedes Maniatis
>> phone +61 2 9660 9700
>> PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
phone +61 2 9660 9700
PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8
Re: Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Oct 24, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Should 1.4's code just merge over to 1.5 then?
Yep. That's how I thought we'd handle the Java 5 switch.
Andrus
Re: Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Actually, I hadn't thought of that. But, given that Java6 introduced new
javax.sql API methods, that could very well be the case.
Should 1.4's code just merge over to 1.5 then?
--
Kevin
On 10/24/07 3:39 AM, "Andrus Adamchik" <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> I think no - somehow I feel there will be "cayenne-jdk1.6-
> unpublished" in a not so distant future.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24/10/2007, at 2:15 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>>
>>> It's to differentiate between assemblies that are published as
>>> JARs and
>>> those that are used simply to build larger assemblies that are
>>> published as
>>> JARs.
>>
>> Now that 1.4 and 1.5 are being merged, do we want to rename that
>> project cayenne-core?
Re: Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
I think no - somehow I feel there will be "cayenne-jdk1.6-
unpublished" in a not so distant future.
Andrus
On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
> On 24/10/2007, at 2:15 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> It's to differentiate between assemblies that are published as
>> JARs and
>> those that are used simply to build larger assemblies that are
>> published as
>> JARs.
>
> Now that 1.4 and 1.5 are being merged, do we want to rename that
> project cayenne-core?
>
> Ari
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> Aristedes Maniatis
> phone +61 2 9660 9700
> PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8
>
>
>
Re: Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@maniatis.org>.
On 24/10/2007, at 2:15 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> It's to differentiate between assemblies that are published as JARs
> and
> those that are used simply to build larger assemblies that are
> published as
> JARs.
Now that 1.4 and 1.5 are being merged, do we want to rename that
project cayenne-core?
Ari
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
phone +61 2 9660 9700
PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8
Re: Why the "unpublished" suffix?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
It's to differentiate between assemblies that are published as JARs and
those that are used simply to build larger assemblies that are published as
JARs.
--
Kevin
On 10/23/07 11:22 AM, "Thomas Bernhard" <tb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Why do some subdirectories have the "-unpublished" suffix?
>
> Is it still needed?
> (to me, this just makes the directories longer).
>
> Thanx,
> Tom.