Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Re: Large Project Structure

Some more details..

Can I have the structure like this way:

Core -
- Client
- Server
- Shared

- Client
- Server
- Shared

- Client
- Server
- Shared

- Client
- Server
- Shared

like this many more. Each module will have it;s own POM.xml and there
will be one overall POM.xml which will the parent one.

Now question is : For this structure , each module should not have
cyclic reference. is this correct ?

Also IF I understand correctly , there will be one project per module
in Eclipse.

Can show one throw some light weather the upper mentioned structure is
right OR I am going on a wrong path.

On May 29, 5:03 pm, Thomas Broyer <> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:26:10 PM UTC+2, Niraj Salot wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > What should be consider as Best Practice for Large Project Structure ?
> > We have multiple modules inside the projects. Also We would like to
> > make sure that single change in one module does not require compile of
> > all the files. It should be just that module only.
> > How to achieve this in GWT Project Structure ?
> GWT does not provide tools to determine whether a compiled GWT module is
> up-to-date wrt its sources. If you use Maven though, gwt-maven-plugin<>does it.
> This is assuming that by "module" you mean a GWT "app" module (one that you
> give to the GWT Compiler), rather than a GWT "library" module (one that you
> <inherits/> in an "app" module), because the GWT compilation is
> "monolithic"; there's no such thing like "incremental compilation" of a GWT
> app.
> For a large project, I'd rather modularize the build, as Кирилл Карпенко
> suggests.
> Using Maven, you can look
> at starting point
> (see
> for a quick overview), and then simply create as many `client` module as
> the number of GWT "app" modules you have.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

No comments:

Post a Comment