> Is there no middle ground?
There was middle ground for years, and it led to a lot of confusion as
there is basically no standardization in WO projects pre-2008, and the
tools to support that insanity were themselves insane.
> 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!
All changes have trade-offs, and it sucks to lose historical data, I
know. At the moment, there is no requirement to change, but it will
likely become progressively more difficult to stay the way you are.
Switching to SVN is one option here -- you could svn import your cvs
history then do renames. I know this is not an option for some people,
and you'll just have to decide what make sense for your projects at
that point.
> 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...
The non-maven layout (FBL) was based on Project Wonder's project
organization, as it was the largest open WO project at the time, and
its structure mode a lot of sense for us for several reasons. For
Maven, as I understand it, the it is the same annoying layout as all
maven projects ;) This was discussed on the wolips list quite a while
ago, and it has made life quite a bit easier for the people who
continually provide support to people in the WO community. Just go
look at the list archives from when WOLips supported arbitrary project
layouts.
> Mike said he will support two project layouts - Wonder and Maven.
> How will this dual layout be supported?
I don't know yet.
> 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)?
You can configure whatever you want using whatever techniques are
available to you (custom maven mojopluginarchitypes or custom ant
scripts in non-maven), I'm just not guaranteeing that everything in
WOLips is going to work if you do. If you stick with the recommended
approaches, you're going to be in the mainline of development and odds
are things will work more smoothly long term. I'm not going to go out
of my way to break people using other layouts, but if a feature is
substantially easier to implement presuming a certain layout, standard
layouts are going to win.
> Great tools are not characterized by "zero flexibility" but by
> careful considerations of requirements and trade-offs.
I agree completely, and we arrived at this decision by careful
consideration of requirements and trade-offs.
ms
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Feb 02 2009 - 11:53:17 EST