Revisit module packaging?

Jiri Kremser jkremser at redhat.com
Mon Jun 17 11:57:01 UTC 2013


Hi,
 I am +1 on removing "rhq-" prefix (and perhaps the "jopr-" prefix as well)

My 2c: 
* plugins could have the "plugin-" prefix instead of "-plugin" suffix, because in Eclipse it is very confusing because it uses the flat mvn module structure.
* the name of the directory should be the same as the artifact id

jk

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heiko W.Rupp" <hrupp at redhat.com>
> To: "rhq-devel" <rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 10:38:32 AM
> Subject: Revisit module packaging?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think we should try to package the RHQ deployment structure differently and
> split out modules like core/domain or server-metrics etc. into their own
> module,
> so that the .ear we deploy will remain as a mostly empty shell.
> 
> On top of that, we should shorten the module names -- especially
> rhq-enterprise-server-startup-subsystem
> but in general, we have all our modules below $INSTALL/modules, so that
> they don't clash with $INSTALL/jbossas/modules
> 
> So for the module names, we should remove any rhq- prefix
> 
>   Heiko
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> 


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list