remove the ptII module
Now that the copy of Top.java has been removed, the ptII module should
be removed as it contains no .java files and adds no apparent functionality.
In addition, the name of the module (ptII) is confusing as we also have
a "ptolemy" module. I would expect the ptII module to use the ptII svn
repository, but instead the ptII module is all but empty and the ptolemy
repository is what uses the ptII module.
I'm marking that as being in have a 2.0.0 target milestone as 2.0 should not
ship with unused functionality.
#1 Updated by Chad Berkley over 9 years ago
The ptII module actually does provide functionality. It contains the metadata needed to build ptolemy successfully. If we can put the module-info directory in the ptolemy svn tree, then we can remove the ptII module. If you think there is a better place for that information, I'm up for suggestions.
#2 Updated by Christopher Brooks over 9 years ago
Ah, right, the module-info directory.
This could go in ptII/adm/kepler/module-info.
adm is not shipped as part of the public releases.
Or, ptII/util/kepler/module-info would work, though I'd prefer adm.
I'd like to see this in a kepler subdirectory in the ptII tree to
make it obvious that this is kepler stuff. A little README.txt would
I'm all for removing complexity, so if adding a directory like this
to the ptII repository would help remove the ptII module, then I'm all for it!
#3 Updated by Chad Berkley over 9 years ago
I think ptII/adm/kepler/module-info would work fine. I'll have to take a look at the build system to see how to change it so it looks in a non-default location for that info for ptolemy. Shouldn't be too hard. I can write a readme describing what the dir is for. I'll get to that after I fix the nightly build again.
#4 Updated by David Welker over 9 years ago
Why can't we just create module-info as a top level directory in Ptolemy?
Otherwise, I object to deleting the ptII directory. I do not think we should complicate the build system code so that module-info can be in an unexpected location. I think either ptolemy should conform to us, or we leave the ptII directory in place.
#5 Updated by Timothy McPhillips over 9 years ago
I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused. I thought ptII was a suite meant to enable Kepler developers to run Ptolemy from the Kepler build system. I frequently do 'ant change-to -Dsuite=ptII' so that I can run Ptolemy from the build system. How will I do that if the ptII suite is removed from the repository?
#6 Updated by Sean Riddle over 9 years ago
I think that would now be "ant change-to -Dsuite=ptolemy". Putting the module-info directory in a non-standard location, though, would require special code just to handle the ptolemy module, right? I know it wouldn't be the first time we had to do things a different way with it, notably since the source code isn't in src/ like in a standard module, but it seems like it would be nice to minimize that. Aren't there other modules that exist only as suite definitions with no source code?
#7 Updated by Timothy McPhillips over 9 years ago
Yes, ppod is a "module" with no source code (what I call a "suite"), just a description.txt and a modules.txt in module-info. I was confused because I didn't see reference to this usage of the ptII suite. Maintaining the ptII suite as a level of indirection such that the build system doesn't have to be made more complex seems like a worthwhile tradeoff to consider.
#9 Updated by Christopher Brooks over 9 years ago
Reopening this bug because the ptII kepler module should be removed.
I'm all for putting kepler module info into the Ptolemy ptII svn repository,
but the location can't be at the top level.
This sort of thing is likely to come up in the future.
If the build system can't be used with the ptII repository, then it
can't be used with all repositories that do not have precisely the
I'm leaving this as targetted to 2.0.0, but it could be retargeted 2.X.Y.
However, it would be good to make changes like this before 2.0.0.