Re: [Springframework-developer] spring modules/spring projects/spring extensions

[Juergen H. <ju...@in...>]

I believe that the most important separation at this point of time is
between different distributions. Each distribution needs to have its own
part of the repository, for administration reasons. A distribution
corresponds more to a project than a module, so "spring-projects" is not
inappropriate, IMO.

Whether we go more fine-granular and create separate modules in the
repository even for parts of a distribution is still undecided for me. There
is arguably no strong need to do this, at least not at this point of time -
in contrast to the separate distributions (Web Flow etc), where we
absolutely _need_ a separation in the repository.

As I already indicated earlier, I'm not a great fan of fine-granular source
repositories in general. I tend to prefer a single unified codebase _per
distribution_, with a simple and straightforward build, rather than a dozen
module source trees in my IDE project tree. This has proven to work up to
now, so I wouldn't mind continuing down that road.

In my opinion, our real problem was the sandbox, which was used for code
that was supposed to end up in separate distributions. The sandbox should
really only be used for stuff that's supposed to end up in the Spring core
distribution. That problem has been addressed already through factoring out
Web Flow and co, so I don't see a strong need to do any further splitting.

Of course, if we decide to do further splits _at the distribution level_, a
need for further splitting of the CVS repository would arise. However, there
are currently no concrete plans to do so...

Juergen


-----Original Message-----
From: spr...@li...
[mailto:spr...@li...]On Behalf
Of Colin Sampaleanu
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 10:01 PM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] spring modules/spring
projects/spring extensions


Keith Donald wrote:

> We need to reach a consensus on what to call our *core* “spring
> modules” repository here at sourceforge and the *extension *“spring
> modules” repository over at java.net.
>
> Right now we’re calling the core stuff “spring projects” – but I’m not
> sure about that usage, “modules” seems like such a better name…
>
> However, having two “spring modules” is obviously confusing.
>
> What about calling the core modules “spring modules” and the work
> happening over at java.net “spring extensions”? That seems like an
> ideal situation. What do you think? Rob? Colin? Juergen? Would it be
> possible to rename the java.net effort or is it too late for that?
>
Well, I have to agree with your suggestion; that's why I gave the
original CVS module the name spring-modules, despite the java.net
project having the same name. The name just seems best suited for the
modules that make up Spring itself, whereas what's at java.net is more
extensions, integrations, or related projects.

Obviously our CVS can go either way. Right now there is both
spring-modules and spring-projects in it (the former was going to be
pruned, while the latter has the most current code). I just don't know
how much work it'd be for somebody (Rob I guess since he's admin there)
to change the java.net project, and how in agreement he is to make a
change there. Ultimately I don't feel like a big argument over a name...

Colin



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Springframework-developer mailing list
Spr...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer