On Dec 26, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> Well, we don't have either. Can I suggest for simplicity that we
> only have org.apache.cayenne and nothing else? That's one less thing
> to think about then. I'm happy to go make the change and run a few
> tests if you don't object.
I suggest to not rush with this. The current layout works ok for us
and this change doesn't buy us anything.
I'd rather we first think how to organize the modules in a more
logical fashion, so that it is clear where the code is in development
and how it makes it to the public module. There were complaints from
our own developers in the past that it is not clear what each Maven
module means and how they should work together. Now the things have
gotten worse in the comprehension side. Another practical benefit of
that is the ability to better organize unit tests around the modules.
> But I think the appropriate way to stop certain modules from being
> deployed is this:
Yes, and we are doing that already. I am talking about logical
organization of things here more than the technical side of Maven.
> Maven typically downloads half the internet every time I run it. I
> doubt anyone will notice :-)
The issue here is not that much the size of it, but rather user-
friendliness and simplicity in handling the artifacts by the end
users. E.g. if I am to deploy Cayenne to my own repo manually for some
reason, I'd have to remember somehow that 1 or 2 parent artifacts also
have to be deployed. This has been a constant annoyance for me with
other frameworks, so I wish that our public modules are only 1 level
deep, and therefore more "portable".
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Dec 26 2009 - 09:40:06 EST