I'd like to propose that the source tree be reorganized as follows: 1. Create a new module called "subsystems" with its own parent POM. 2. Move all subsystems and their support modules into this directory. This will make modules easier to find and also will let us apply policy to subsystems, which may come in handy, and also lets us rebuild just subsystems, which may also come in handy.

I bring it up on the list because of the potential conflicts introduced, so people can sync up and be ready if we go ahead with it.

I think you are misreading his post. He is talking about differentiating a subsystem from core components with is just improving code organization nothing more. BTW we have quite a bit of "system docs" in wikis and javadoc. On Mar 17, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Scott Marlow<smarlow(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On 03/17/2011 06:51 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote: >> I'd like to propose that the source tree be reorganized as follows: >> >> 1. Create a new module called "subsystems" with its own parent POM. >> 2. Move all subsystems and their support modules into this directory. >> >> This will make modules easier to find and also will let us apply policy >> to subsystems, which may come in handy, and also lets us rebuild just >> subsystems, which may also come in handy. > > I would like to break the reasons into separate items: > > 1. Make modules easier to find. > > 2. Applying policy to subsytems. > > 3. Rebuilding just subsystems. > > For (1), I think the current source tree organization is easy enough (so > don't burn the time to change it now). Are people complaining that they > cannot find modules? > > What kind of policies (2) do we need to handle at the per subsystem > level? I assume you have some specific policies in mind as we have > typically only built infrastructure that we need. It must be for some > top secret project that you cannot mention here. I'm just not buying > the futuristic (we might need it in the future) view here. I have to > ask who you really are and what you did with David? ;-) > > I think that having separate projects (3) allowed us to build only the > specific project but they increase the number of moving parts in the > system. > > My short alternative list to improve things :-): > > 4. Write system documentation. > > 5. Consider a way to make the AS7 commit process more scalable (e.g. > more lieutenants committing changes). > > >> >> I bring it up on the list because of the potential conflicts introduced, >> so people can sync up and be ready if we go ahead with it. >> > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-as7-dev mailing list > jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

On 03/17/2011 06:51 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote: > I'd like to propose that the source tree be reorganized as follows: >

I'm just not buying the futuristic (we might need it in the future) view here. I have to ask who you really are and what you did with David? ;-)

Just to be sure that I understood this right, you mean something like the following? as-trunk |--> domain-controller | |--> subsystem | |----> ee | |----> ejb3 | |----> web | |--> <others> -Jaikiran On Friday 18 March 2011 04:21 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote: > I'd like to propose that the source tree be reorganized as follows: > > 1. Create a new module called "subsystems" with its own parent POM. > 2. Move all subsystems and their support modules into this directory. > > This will make modules easier to find and also will let us apply policy > to subsystems, which may come in handy, and also lets us rebuild just > subsystems, which may also come in handy. > > I bring it up on the list because of the potential conflicts introduced, > so people can sync up and be ready if we go ahead with it. > _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev