Re: [rules-dev] [vote] Module drools-atom in limbo

Hi Geoffrey, Being relatively new I can't comment on some of the specifics, but I question the following:- - drools-assistant Hmm... is this the refactoring support project? If so - not sure what

- drools-atom Can retire - was an atom-module for Guvnor for atompub support (what little

- drools-clips (I believe Mark did this on a rainy weekend, but don't know if it's still supported). HAhaha - I believe that started in a pub, and then mark did a furious

- drools-container - drools-doc\drools-docs (which is actively used?!? Do we need both?) - drools-rhq-plugin I think Edson (?) did this - or Heiko Rupp? this is legitimate probably -

- - drools-simulator - install - src I have thought for a long time I'd be good to have on the Wiki a summary of what each project represents and what package (JAR) they bundle into. Cheers, Mike On 26 October 2010 15:59, Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: > I am looking at cleaning up the build and moving to maven 3, to make it > faster, more reliable, etc. > I am also actively wondering if some modules or files aren't dead code. > First candidate is drools-atom: > > The module drools-atom is in limbo: > - It still exists > - It's not part of any build > - Does it still build? No > -- 'dependencies.dependency.version' is missing for > org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-frontend-jaxrs:jar > - Does it still compile against the latest drools version? Idunno, but > since it's not part of the build, tomorrow's refactor might break it. > - Does anyone use it? If it doesn't build and it isn't released... no? > > I don't think that code is useful to anyone in this state. I do think > it's presence alone slightly complicates the drools sources. > > > What do we do with it? > - [A] remove the directory drools-atom from trunk (it's still retired in > in subversion) > - [B] leave it like it is now. It might be usefull to someone > - [C] add it to the build again, make it work > - [D] create a separate repository "drools-incubator" and move it there > > In my opinion: > +1 for [A] > -1 for [B]: either it builds or it's not in trunk > > > If we all agree that removing dead modules is a good idea, I 'll provide > a list of possible candidates next time. > > -- > With kind regards, > Geoffrey De Smet > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev