9 messages in org.apache.jackrabbit.devRe: Welcome to Apache Jackrabbit| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Roy T. Fielding | 12 Sep 2004 22:47 | |
| Stefan Guggisberg | 13 Sep 2004 03:43 | |
| Tim Reilly | 13 Sep 2004 06:02 | |
| Gianugo Rabellino | 13 Sep 2004 06:14 | |
| Stefan Guggisberg | 13 Sep 2004 07:00 | |
| David Nuescheler | 13 Sep 2004 07:16 | |
| Gianugo Rabellino | 13 Sep 2004 07:32 | |
| Paul Russell | 13 Sep 2004 08:27 | |
| Roy T. Fielding | 13 Sep 2004 10:58 |
| Subject: | Re: Welcome to Apache Jackrabbit |
|---|---|
| From: | Paul Russell (wo...@paulrussell.org) |
| Date: | 09/13/2004 08:27:08 AM |
| List: | org.apache.jackrabbit.dev |
On 13 Sep 2004, at 11:43, Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:47:56 -0700, Roy T. Fielding <fiel...@gbiv.com> wrote:
The code itself needs to be migrated from slide cvs to subversion. When that happens (probably sometime today/tomorrow, assuming I get the request to infrastructure tonight), it will be located at
what do you think of "org.apache.jackrabbit.jcr.*" for the ri and "org.apache.jackrabbit.tck.*" for the tck? any better ideas?
+1. I'm happy with this, as a starting point at least. My guess is that the structure of the project as a whole, and therefore the package hierarchy is likely to evolve significantly over the next few months as we all set scope & strategy and get acquainted. The good news is that since we're using SVN, it's not like it's a nightmare to change the package names if we need to, particularly prior to the 1.0 release.
as the package structure needs to be changed (and the code needs to be refactored to reflect the new package structure), i would volunteer to refactor the code first and commit it to svn. does anybody object?
Absolutely fine by me.
btw, what should i do with the 'old' proposal code in the slide cvs? if nobody has any objections, i will remove jakarta-slide/proposals/jcrri (it will still be accessible in the attic).
Again, that sounds reasonable. Let's not leave 'JCR droppings' everywhere, eh? ;)
tim reilly has suggested a while ago that the jcrri project should be 'mavenized'. he has also offered to help convert the current project setup to maven style. i think now would be a perfect opportunity to do the conversion. any comments/objections?
I'm +1 on this, with the major caveat that I /do not/ want this to become a big debate. If people have strong reservations about using Maven, I'd rather we postponed the discussion until we have more evidence either way as to the worth of it in this project.
Personally, I like Maven, and have used it on a few projects. In general, these have been things that have complex dependancies, or have lots of 'modules' contained within the umbrella project. It seems to work well, although I acknowledge that it has become a bit of a beast.
Can I make a suggestion? * If everyone is happy with using Maven for the time being, then lets do so and see how it goes. * If people have strong reservations, then can I suggest we at least adopt the same project higheracy? This would allow us to easily switch to maven later if we decided to do so, and would imply a higheracy that looks something like: * main java source -> src/java * main resources -> src/resources * test java source -> src/test * test resources -> src/test-data * main compile target -> target/classes * test compile target -> target/test-classes * distributions -> target/distributions
I should be able to help Tim with this also: I'm not hugely experienced with the 'site' side of maven, but have done basic work with it.
Paul -- Paul Russell wo...@paulrussell.org