On 06/02/2009, at 11:09 PM, Jephte CLAIN wrote:
> I use "framework" to mean "library". But I'd like that library to be
> built as a WebObjects framework, so I use the term "framework".
This seems completely contradictory. i.e., if it's not a WebObjects
framework then what exactly do you mean by 'built as a WebObjects
framework'?
I'm going to assume you mean that you would like it to be 'included'
in the final build just as your linked WebObjects frameworks are, right?
>> Do you just mean you have a project dependency that isn't a WO
>> framework at all (i.e. just ends up as a regular java jar?)?
>
> Yes. The libraries are used by command line tools, by JEE
> applications and by WebObjects applications.
>
>> If you
>> don't have Components and WebServerResources and all the things
>> that make a framework a Framework, then you would link to it just
>> like any other Java Project (just add a project dependency).
>
> Yes, but the generated App.woa/Contents/{MacOS,UNIX,Windows}/
> *ClassPath*.txt are wrong (they do not include the lines for the
> frameworks I build for these libraries.)
>
>> You'll need to
>> either use something like Maven
Which will do this just fine btw. i.e., generated classpath.txt is
correct for every jar project I care to add as a dependency.
>> or add some custom ant build steps to get the jars in a place that
>> your WO app can use them, but the current WOLips doesn't provide
>> anything specific for this either. I link against non-WO frameworks
>> without any problems.
>
> I'd like something that means "build this java project as a
> webobjects framework, and link to it like a webobjects framework,
> even though it looks like a plain old java project"
>
> You're right, the solution for now is to add custom ant build steps
> (This is what I do), but I'd like the wolips builder to handle this
> situation as well.
Sounds like a reasonable request on the face of it. Realistically, I
think Mike's seeing the potential blow-out and drain of resources this
could potentially pull as there's lots of different project types, and
with them configurations, that are potential targets for inclusion.
So, in this regard, to ask for that level of support, i.e.,
essentially a universal build system, from the woproject team is a
distraction from it's main focus and possibly asking a bit much...
unless you wanna chip in and do it ;-).
The main focus of the wolips team, thus far at least, has been with
providing a great set of tools for development purposes. When you need
more than this, i.e., when you're in need of more advanced builds, you
need to look at incorporating tools that focus on build/deployment
needs, I suggest. It looks like you're already meeting this goal in
some part.
> Am I the only one to work like this? (share libraries between
> several projects types) What do you think?
No.
with regards,
--Lachlan Deck
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Feb 06 2009 - 07:45:50 EST