Hi Remy!
Ok, so I'll (try to) create the structure (not the one in this mail),
but how is it done in SVN ? Is it all simply folders without anything
special ?
A simple bunch of "svn mkdir" commands will do its job.
There's nothing special about it.
Regards
Florian
---
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
Given the comments, I propose using a single repository with the
following structure (based on our root "tomcat" repository):
- tc6.0.x/trunk:
- src/share: all the relevant sources go there
- webapps: all our current webapps, including the examples webapps
(note:
are all the conf files, startup scripts etc in one place? res?
I was thinking that we still have a src directory, and subdirectories
under that.
trunk/src/java
trunk/src/native
trunk/webapps
etc
Keith Wannamaker wrote:
Yes, this will do nicely.
Keith
Costin Manolache wrote:
We still need
Yes, this will do nicely.
Keith
Costin Manolache wrote:
We still need separate dirs for native code and java I think.
What about:
tc6(.0.x ?)/trunk/java
tc6/trunk/native
tc6/trunk/webapps
tc6/trunk/res
-
To unsubscribe, e
We should keep the java sources separate from the native sources by one
more level under src/, aka the share directory (or something- I always
thought it referenced "share"d across platforms as simply opposed to
specific "native" code).
Keith
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
I've b
Hi!Costin Manolache schrieb:
> The extra src/ is useless in our code organization.
>
Sure, but it didn't cost anything and it makes clear where to look if
one searches the sources.
Its simply one nice little place for all the great code.
But ok, its my personal preference :-)
---
Mario
-
On 3/1/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
> >> tc6(.0.x ?)/trunk/java
> >> tc6/trunk/native
> >> tc6/trunk/webapps
> >> tc6/trunk/res
> Isn't it widely used to have:
>
> src/java
> src/tests
> src/native
Widely used doesn't mean it's good in all cases :-)
For most simple native
Hi!
>> tc6(.0.x ?)/trunk/java
>> tc6/trunk/native
>> tc6/trunk/webapps
>> tc6/trunk/res
Isn't it widely used to have:
src/java
src/tests
src/native
Ciao,
Mario
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands
Hola,
> "share" has a long history - I think JDK is organized this way, with
> separate dirs for windows, linux, etc.
Maybe the JDK was organized that way in the past, but doesn't seem to
be that way any more. Anyways, I don't think it has a purpose
currently. If something we're not aware of co
Costin Manolache wrote:
We still need separate dirs for native code and java I think.
What about:
tc6(.0.x ?)/trunk/java
tc6/trunk/native
tc6/trunk/webapps
tc6/trunk/res
There's a native folder too, and most likely there should be a test
folder too.
and the docs webapp at top level, as Yo
We still need separate dirs for native code and java I think.
What about:
tc6(.0.x ?)/trunk/java
tc6/trunk/native
tc6/trunk/webapps
tc6/trunk/res
and the docs webapp at top level, as Yoav suggested.
"share" has a long history - I think JDK is organized this way, with
separate dirs for windows,
So let's make it:
- tc6.0.x/trunk:
- src: all the relevant sources go there
- webapps: all our current webapps, including the examples webapps
- resources: misc resources, such as configuration files
(server.xml), readmes, etc
+1
Yoav Shapira wrote:
So let's make it:
- tc6.0.x/trunk:
- src: all the relevant sources go there
- webapps: all our current webapps, including the examples webapps
- resources: misc resources, such as configuration files
(server.xml), readmes, etc
OK.
One other thing: can we put docs u
> So let's make it:
> - tc6.0.x/trunk:
>- src: all the relevant sources go there
>- webapps: all our current webapps, including the examples webapps
>- resources: misc resources, such as configuration files
> (server.xml), readmes, etc
OK.
One other thing: can we put docs under trunk
Yoav Shapira wrote:
I've been meaning to ask this for years now: what's the purpose of the
"share" directory under src? We share all our source by definition,
so it just seems like an extra layer...
I have no idea what "share" means either ;)
So let's make it:
- tc6.0.x/trunk:
- src: all th
I've been meaning to ask this for years now: what's the purpose of the
"share" directory under src? We share all our source by definition,
so it just seems like an extra layer...
Yoav
On 3/1/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given the comments, I propose using a single repo
> At this point, I don't think there's a big need to decide on these
> components. From what I understand, the general opinion is to have a
> "src" folder containing all the source, with a target that builds
> everything, and then have subtargets for packaging individual components.
Yeah.
Yoav
-
Mark Thomas wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
I think it is time to decide how the source repository is going to be
organized, with the questions being:
- how many source folders do we need (Costin wanted one, while others
like Jacob seem to want "modules") ?
- do we continue to use Ant ?
- etc
good idea, I will refactor that.
Filip
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Of course, this is a case where you need a separate module.
IMHO it is a bad sign when you have to do this - maybe you could use a
different
package name instead of same class names, or refactor a bit so you
Costin Manolache wrote:
Of course, this is a case where you need a separate module.
IMHO it is a bad sign when you have to do this - maybe you could use a
different
package name instead of same class names, or refactor a bit so you don't depend
on the class name.
But if for any reason you have t
Of course, this is a case where you need a separate module.
IMHO it is a bad sign when you have to do this - maybe you could use a
different
package name instead of same class names, or refactor a bit so you don't depend
on the class name.
But if for any reason you have to use the same classname,
I would prefer to keep the module source tree separate.
For example, the "ha" module (cluster2) uses the same classes as the
"cluster", but they are being enhanced for performance and modularity.
merging all this into one tree would be a pain in the neck.
Filip
Costin Manolache wrote:
On 2/2
On 2/28/06, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it is time to decide how the source repository is going to be
> > organized, with the questions being:
> > - how many source folders do we need (Costin wanted one, while others
> > like Jacob seem to
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it is time to decide how the source repository is going to be
> organized, with the questions being:
> - how many source folders do we need (Costin wanted one, while others
> like Jacob seem to want "modules") ?
> - do we continue to use Ant ?
> - etc
I am
s!
I also thing we don't use maven2.
+1 to use ant
Peter
Am 28.02.2006 um 19:49 schrieb Bill Barker:
-Original Message-
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Tomcat 6 source organisat
Yes!
I also thing we don't use maven2.
+1 to use ant
Peter
Am 28.02.2006 um 19:49 schrieb Bill Barker:
-Original Message-
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Tomcat 6 s
> -Original Message-
> From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:24 AM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: Tomcat 6 source organisation
>
> On 2/28/06, Peter Rossbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> &
On 2/28/06, Peter Rossbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can have maven2 dependency management without use maven2 complete.
>
> see. http://maven.apache.org/ant-tasks.html
I have no problem with using maven or similar tasks for downloading
the deps, if they
can provide the same functionality wit
We can have maven2 dependency management without use maven2 complete.
see. http://maven.apache.org/ant-tasks.html
I thing maven is good for standard prepare/compile/test, but is heavy
to use with spezial things like the current tomcat release build. I
have heard that some "go back to ant" di
On 2/28/06, Keith Wannamaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for consolidating into a single module/src folder.
>
> maven has matured since I last looked. It seems the biggest advantages
> for us would be dependency management and a common build layout. I
> don't have a feel for how much work it
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Overall, I'm +1 on Ant (-0.5 on Maven), and +0 to a single source tree
and other consolidations / clarifications / improvements that'll make
it easier to work with Tomcat's source...
Ok, this sounds good to me.
Yoav Shapira
Senior Architect
Nimalex LLC
1 Mifflin Place, Sui
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Having a single source tree would also greatly simplify the ant file,
Obviously, the build script would be far far simpler. Personally, I am
also in favor of a single source tree, since it's simply much easier to
work with.
I hope this will
Overall, I'm +1 on Ant (-0.5 on Maven), and +0 to a single source tree
and other consolidations / clarifications / improvements that'll make
it easier to work with Tomcat's source...
Yoav
On 2/28/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > Why would you want to cha
Costin Manolache wrote:
Why would you want to change ant ???
I don't, I am asking questions.
Re. source folders versus modules - we can have both of them, it's not
exclusive.
Single source tree makes it easy to navigate, more IDE-friendly, etc.
The build file can compile as many modules as ne
Costin Manolache wrote:
Re. source folders versus modules - we can have both of them, it's not
exclusive.
Single source tree makes it easy to navigate, more IDE-friendly, etc.
The build file can compile as many modules as needed - either by compiling a
subset of the tree, or by compiling the enti
+1 for consolidating into a single module/src folder.
maven has matured since I last looked. It seems the biggest advantages
for us would be dependency management and a common build layout. I
don't have a feel for how much work it would take to convert, but it
doesn't seem like we would loos
Why would you want to change ant ???
Re. source folders versus modules - we can have both of them, it's not
exclusive.
Single source tree makes it easy to navigate, more IDE-friendly, etc.
The build file can compile as many modules as needed - either by compiling a
subset of the tree, or by compil
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
Ant as opposed to Maven, or to something else? I like Ant...
Yes, I meant it as Ant vs Maven 2, indeed.
Rémy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
Hola,
Ant as opposed to Maven, or to something else? I like Ant...
Yoav
On 2/28/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it is time to decide how the source repository is going to be
> organized, with the questions being:
> - how many source folders do we need (Costin want
39 matches
Mail list logo
