From: "Darran Lofthouse" <darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com&gt; To: jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:10:22 AM Subject: [jdf-dev] Quickstarts - Single or Multiple Projects Hello all, I have a quick question that I think partly comes down to personal preference so I wanted to get some feedback on other options. When developing a quickstart that contains a deployment and a client to call the deployment is it preferable to contain this within a single maven artefact or split it out with a common parent? As an Eclipse user provided the client is simple my preference is to keep this in a single Maven artefact so when imported into Eclipse it will be a single project. As a command line user I also prefer this as I don't need two terminal tabs or a change of working directory to switch between deploying and running the quickstart. There a some quickstarts that have to be split up to achieve the packaging being demonstrated but I think those have a clear justification for doing so. I understand for IntelliJ users if split with a common parent the sub modules are still represented within the parent module so they don't experience the three project like in Eclipse. So overall just looking for some feedback on which direction is preferable. Thanks for your time. Regards, Darran Lofthouse. _______________________________________________ jdf-dev mailing list jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

I think all of the existing quickstarts that have separate client and server side artifacts currently split them out with a common parent. But I will defer to Pete on which is the best approach. :-) On 01/16/2013 10:10 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a quick question that I think partly comes down to personal > preference so I wanted to get some feedback on other options. > > When developing a quickstart that contains a deployment and a client to > call the deployment is it preferable to contain this within a single > maven artefact or split it out with a common parent? > > As an Eclipse user provided the client is simple my preference is to > keep this in a single Maven artefact so when imported into Eclipse it > will be a single project. As a command line user I also prefer this as > I don't need two terminal tabs or a change of working directory to > switch between deploying and running the quickstart. > > There a some quickstarts that have to be split up to achieve the > packaging being demonstrated but I think those have a clear > justification for doing so. > > I understand for IntelliJ users if split with a common parent the sub > modules are still represented within the parent module so they don't > experience the three project like in Eclipse. > > So overall just looking for some feedback on which direction is preferable. > > Thanks for your time. > > Regards, > Darran Lofthouse. > _______________________________________________ > jdf-dev mailing list > jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

On 01/16/2013 04:14 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > Mostly, we've split the two projects, to keep the maven bit simple, but there isn't a hard rule here. I have to say I don't really see a simplicity gain in having multiple projects - the only thing possibly a little more complex in a single project is that some artefacts are now set with a scope of runtime although for a project deploying a jar they probably don't need a scope setting at all. For the multi artefact approach we end up with three poms that need to be maintained together.

> On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:07, Sande Gilda wrote: > >> I think all of the existing quickstarts that have separate client and server side artifacts currently split them out with a common parent. But I will defer to Pete on which is the best approach. :-) >> >> On 01/16/2013 10:10 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I have a quick question that I think partly comes down to personal >>> preference so I wanted to get some feedback on other options. >>> >>> When developing a quickstart that contains a deployment and a client to >>> call the deployment is it preferable to contain this within a single >>> maven artefact or split it out with a common parent? >>> >>> As an Eclipse user provided the client is simple my preference is to >>> keep this in a single Maven artefact so when imported into Eclipse it >>> will be a single project. As a command line user I also prefer this as >>> I don't need two terminal tabs or a change of working directory to >>> switch between deploying and running the quickstart. >>> >>> There a some quickstarts that have to be split up to achieve the >>> packaging being demonstrated but I think those have a clear >>> justification for doing so. >>> >>> I understand for IntelliJ users if split with a common parent the sub >>> modules are still represented within the parent module so they don't >>> experience the three project like in Eclipse. >>> >>> So overall just looking for some feedback on which direction is preferable. >>> >>> Thanks for your time. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Darran Lofthouse. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jdf-dev mailing list >>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >> >

On 01/16/2013 04:38 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > >> On 01/16/2013 04:14 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >>> Mostly, we've split the two projects, to keep the maven bit simple, but there isn't a hard rule here. >> >> I have to say I don't really see a simplicity gain in having multiple projects - the only thing possibly a little more complex in a single project is that some artefacts are now set with a scope of runtime although for a project deploying a jar they probably don't need a scope setting at all. >> >> For the multi artefact approach we end up with three poms that need to be maintained together. > > Maven is designed to produce one artifact per project, not multiple artifacts per project. You need to introduce quite a lot of xml to produce multiple artifacts. The LOC of Maven is definitely higher with three projects, but a lot is identical, so that doesn't increase the complexity - in fact, most of the xml is the same as what is in other projects so even simpler. > > BTW the maven guidelines are for one artifact per maven project. For this scenario there is only one artefact which is the jar that is deployed to the server - the executable client also lives within this artefact. If I was developing an EJB deployment that was going to be called by say a separate war then I would agree that two projects are needed as a jar and a war need to be produced.

On 01/16/2013 04:49 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > Often people are writing eg. an application client or a java se program that is going to call into the AS via JNDI, this is what we have to date. If you are thinking of something else, another structure may be better, indeed! In this case it is just a Java SE class making the call to an EJB so I think the single project structure is going to be sufficient. > On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:47, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > >> On 01/16/2013 04:38 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >>> On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>> >>>> On 01/16/2013 04:14 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>> Mostly, we've split the two projects, to keep the maven bit simple, but there isn't a hard rule here. >>>> I have to say I don't really see a simplicity gain in having multiple projects - the only thing possibly a little more complex in a single project is that some artefacts are now set with a scope of runtime although for a project deploying a jar they probably don't need a scope setting at all. >>>> >>>> For the multi artefact approach we end up with three poms that need to be maintained together. >>> Maven is designed to produce one artifact per project, not multiple artifacts per project. You need to introduce quite a lot of xml to produce multiple artifacts. The LOC of Maven is definitely higher with three projects, but a lot is identical, so that doesn't increase the complexity - in fact, most of the xml is the same as what is in other projects so even simpler. >>> >>> BTW the maven guidelines are for one artifact per maven project. >> For this scenario there is only one artefact which is the jar that is deployed to the server - the executable client also lives within this artefact. >> >> If I was developing an EJB deployment that was going to be called by say a separate war then I would agree that two projects are needed as a jar and a war need to be produced. _______________________________________________ jdf-dev mailing list jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev