« Return to Thread: buildtools vs. tools
Would (2) keep dependencies non-cyclic and be a partial solution (with a
JIRA for more later)?
(I only suggest this because I have been trying recently to think how my
own work could improve and one of the things I identified was that I
wasn't making enough small refactorings to improve things. So I'm now
looking for examples where that approach might work.)
Cheers,
Andrew
> I'm afraid the real problem is cyclic dependencies. That's why there's
> buildtools which has minimum mule dependencies. I wouldn't shake that boat
> now, but we can definitely make an effort later. JIRA?
>
> Andrew
>
> On 6/17/07, Travis Carlson < tcarlson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>> I was just looking at the fact that we have both "buildtools" and
>> "tools"
>> as root-level directories. This seems a bit messy. I propose we do one
>> of
>> the following:
>>
>> 1. Merge the contents of "buildtools" into "tools" and just exclude
>> the
>> non-user-facing tools from the distro.
>>
>> 2. Make 2 subdirectories under "tools": "tools/build" and "tools/user"
>>
>> 3. Move "buildtools" under "distributions"
>>
>> Also, shouldn't "mule-assembly-verifier" (and perhaps "bobberplus") go
>> under "buildtools" instead of "tools"?
>>
>> Any opinions?
>>
>> Travis
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>>
>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
« Return to Thread: buildtools vs. tools
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |