Re: Q: Java source and directory structure - 'standard way' ?
From: Missaka Wijekoon (mwijekoon_at_RemoveThis.villageEDOCS.com)
Date: 01/24/04
- Next message: Konrad Den Ende: "Re: Writing Unicode-16 to a text file"
- Previous message: Andrew Thompson: "Re: Mars Rover Not Responding"
- In reply to: FISH: "Q: Java source and directory structure - 'standard way' ?"
- Next in thread: Raymond DeCampo: "Re: Q: Java source and directory structure - 'standard way' ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:11:43 GMT
I think this may be a difference in JDKs. I prefer that the package
source be in all one place and the JDK build the tree as it compiles.
-Misk
FISH wrote:
> Ever have one of those days when you're not sure if it's you who's gone
> mad, or the rest of the world?
>
> I have an Open Source project on SourceForge for communication with YSMG
> - Yahoo's IM protocol. I keep the project source in three directories,
> based upon the code's function: one for the network API code itself, one
> for the support APIs (basic chat spam filtering, Swing models, rich text
> decoders, etc), and one for the test client built using the network API.
>
> When I compile I use the -d option on Sun's SDK... the compiler builds
> the necessary directory tree (if not already there from a previous build)
> and places the class files into it.
>
> One or two users have complained that the source is in the wrong direct-
> ories and it won't compile. One guy helpfully rearranged the source tree
> and mailed me a zip file - telling me this is the 'standard way' to store
> Java source.
>
> What they do is they build the package directory tree by hand, place
> their .java files into the appropriate directories, and then just
> "javac *.java" in each directory of the tree. The result is that, in
> the absense of a specified output directory, the class files end up
> right next to the source files - but this works because the source
> code directory structure has been created to mirror the package names.
>
> This isn't the first time I've seen this done - I've noted a programmer
> where I work does the same thing! And although it works, to me it is
> less than ideal. I have a hard time accepting that this is the 'standard
> way', for several reasons:
>
> 1) The compiler should be responsible for organising and creating *ALL*
> its output itself - this includes creating any directories which
> are needed for its representation of the code. The user should not
> need to work this out in advance and provide them.
>
> 2) With source and class files intermixed, packing up the source or
> creating a Jar becomes a major headache. Surely the output direct
> -ories should remain _pure_, containing only those files which form
> the package?
>
> 3) This scheme pre-supposes that Java compilers will always use direct-
> ories to model their package hierarchy - which might not always be
> the case.
>
> I can think of a handful of other reasons why I think this scheme is
> inferior, but I think I've already made my point...! :-) So, the
> question is... Is this *really* the 'standard way' (or conventional
> way) of holding Java source - or are all these coders just ignorant
> of the -d switch ???
>
>
> -FISH- ><>
-- ======================================================================== Missaka Wijekoon (a.k.a. Misk) mwijekoon@RemoveThis.villageEdocs.com Sr. Software Engineer http://www.villageEdocs.com VillageEdocs ========================================================================
- Next message: Konrad Den Ende: "Re: Writing Unicode-16 to a text file"
- Previous message: Andrew Thompson: "Re: Mars Rover Not Responding"
- In reply to: FISH: "Q: Java source and directory structure - 'standard way' ?"
- Next in thread: Raymond DeCampo: "Re: Q: Java source and directory structure - 'standard way' ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
