Engage directory structure

[antranig at caret.cam.ac.uk]

Hi there - I think this looks reasonable, but I think it will be hard to make
any firm decisions "at 10,000 feet" (without a plane!) without working
through some of the fine-grained issues that this brings up. An important
issue is what kind of separation we expect between the parts of kettle,
for example, which are dependent on the Java infrastructure (or even worse,
*are* the Java infrastructure) and those parts which are pure JS.
Ominously, of course, this is the kind of issue that depends on us having
stabilised some kind of reasonable IoC infrastructure, though that shouldn't
prevent us making some kind of interim decision now.

What would the "lib" directory contain? Infusion?
And if we had a "services" webapp, what would go in it?
We should bear in mind that if we are planning for this to coexist in a
M2 build structure it needs to work sensibly with respect to "WAR composition"
whereby a composite WAR image is build up, in effect, by simply unzipping
all the WARs into a common directory and then zipping them up again.

In "the bad days" this was a problem given that it meant that paths at
development time would differ from those at deploy time - but this kind
of slack can now be taken up by "mounts". The problem we do have remaining
is to make sure that somehow that the component WARs do not contain
contents that collide. This can be awkward, especially since M2 often
insists that they have some kind of web.xml file ...

Quoting Yura Zenevich <yura.zenevich at gmail.com>:

> I was just wondering what kettle directory would mean inside this structure.
> Would it include all kettle server infrastructure and all the javascript
> apps, or these two would be defined somehow separately?
>
> Regards,
>
> Yura
>
> On Sep 22, 2009 5:22 PM, "Colin Clark" <colinbdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Michelle and everyone else,
>
> On 21-Sep-09, at 3:44 PM, Michelle D'Souza wrote:
>
>  Hi everyone,
> >
> > As we approach the 0.1 release of Engage we need to decide on the directory
> > structure of the engage trunk. Here is a suggestion which is based on the
> > Infusion structure. Please comment and suggest alternatives. One question I
> > have - should there be a services directory? What would go in there?
> >
> > fluid
> >        engage
> >                trunk
> >                        src
> >                                webapp
> >                                        components
> >                                        demos
> >                                        kettle
> >                                        lib
> >                                        tests
> >
>
> How does this sit with the standard directory structure expected by Maven 2?
>
> I'd love to hear from Antranig and Yura about this proposed directory
> structure and if it will suit our needs.
>
> In the end, our goal is to make building Engage as simple as possible. Since
> it's currently based on Kettle's JVM-based approach, Maven is probably the
> way this will be built. If we need to add an Ant script for other
> build-related tasks, we can look at that, too.
>
> Colin
>
> ---
> Colin Clark
> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
> http://fluidproject.org
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.