[rules-dev] Modules description on the wiki or in the pom.xml description?

[Mark Proctor]

On 27/10/2010 07:54, Geoffrey De Smet wrote:
>   >>>      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.
>
> Imho, this summary is better put in the pom.xml's<description>  entity,
> instead of the wiki, because:
> - easier to stay up to date (like javadocs)
> - easier to find for most people (I doubt many even know about the wiki)
> - used in repository search engines, such as
> -- http://repository.jboss.org/nexus
> -- http://www.mvnrepostory.com
maybe one of those maven reports can be generated and uploaded to the wiki.

Mark
> Op 27-10-10 06:00, Mark Proctor schreef:
>> Here is a starting point if anyone wants to keep busy:
>> http://community.jboss.org/wiki/Modules
>>
>> Mark
>> On 27/10/2010 04:37, Lucas Amador wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> drools-assistant is the module that I created to add refactoring
>>> support in the eclipse plugin/guvnor. The last weekend I fixed the
>>> integration with eclipse and they will be commited in the next days,
>>> maybe tomorrow :)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Lucas
>>>
>>> On 26 October 2010 23:09, Mark Proctor<mproctor at codehaus.org
>>> <mailto:mproctor at codehaus.org>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>      On 26/10/2010 22:57, Michael Anstis wrote:
>>>>      Hi Geoffrey,
>>>>
>>>>      Being relatively new I can't comment on some of the specifics,
>>>>      but I question the following:-
>>>>
>>>>          * drools-assistant
>>>>          * drools-atom
>>>>          * drools-clips (I believe Mark did this on a rainy weekend,
>>>>            but don't know if it's still supported).
>>>>          * drools-container
>>>>          * drools-doc\drools-docs (which is actively used?!? Do we
>>>>            need both?)
>>>>          * drools-rhq-plugin
>>>>          * 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.
>>>      You just volunteered yourself for your first task next november
>>>      when you start ;)
>>>
>>>      Mark
>>>
>>>>      Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>      Mike
>>>>
>>>>      On 26 October 2010 15:59, Geoffrey De Smet
>>>>      <ge0ffrey.spam at gmail.com<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam at gmail.com>>  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 at lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>          https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>      rules-dev mailing list
>>>>      rules-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>      https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      rules-dev mailing list
>>>      rules-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>      https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-dev mailing list
>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev