Lachlan Deck wrote:
> On 01/02/2009, at 8:44 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
>> I don't like it.
> Well I'm looking for discussion about how to enhance wolips as a tool
> in order to make things workable for those not using ant etc or
> allowing wolips to just work with legacy projects... without adding
> problems to existing projects.
>
> Certainly I'm not aiming to make things more difficult.
Is there no middle ground?
I agree with Mike/Anjo/Chuck that supporting endless configurability is
not a very good idea. In this case; if I comply and restructure my
project layout I lose 8 years of cvs history - not happy about that!
How did you decide which project structure to support? To me a WO
project is primarily a Java project. I've seen few Java projects with a
layout that match Wonder projects. If I create a new blank Java project
in eclipse I get a 'src' and a 'bin' folder. Seems natural to me to have
a 'lib' folder...
Mike said he will support two project layouts - Wonder and Maven. How
will this dual layout be supported?
Is it possible to let Wonder/Maven define which things need to be
configurable, but let individual users do the actual configuration (it
could be something that is neither Wonder nor Maven compliant)?
Great tools are not characterized by "zero flexibility" but by careful
considerations of requirements and trade-offs.
/Anders
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Feb 02 2009 - 10:07:11 EST