[Rainbowportal-devel] releases, updates, testing, random ideas.

[Chris F. <ch...@cf...>]

Gang,
   In discussion with a few others, here is a list of ideas.  Not all are 
my ideas although
I am adding my perspective on them somewhat.  Note that some of these are just
entirely random.

1:  What to include in the release?  Personally I would like to see the 
release modified
to where we can have
         A:  end user release.  Basically this is a non-developer 
release.  They download it,
         they install it, they use it.  The difference would range from 
small items such as debug
         turned off by default, not including source, no code that would 
require extra licensing(active up??).
         This would simplify the installation process for new users to get 
the best result without
         really knowing everything about the portal.

         B:  developer release.  Basically what we have now.  Include 
source and binary.

2:  Which modules?  I think core has too many modules as Mark mentioned in 
the below
email.  I like his idea of separating the modules into "packs".  IMHO..
         A:  Core should include the admin modules and basic modules 
Annoucements,
         Articles, Discussion, Documents, FAQs, Links, perhaps the IFrame 
module and a few others.
         B:  Items such as Books, Google Search, Daily Dilbert, etc should 
be available as add-ons.

3:  Module distribution style.  Ideally, at least in my mind, would be if 
each module was its own
dll.  First it would provide some level of copy control for potential 
commercial module authors.  I can't
imagine many commercial authors willing to rely on the trust system.  Also, 
adding new modules
could be done without recompiling the entire portal and updates could be 
done without compilation.
Finally, it would make it far easier for newbies and non-techies to 
install/add modules.  I do not know
how to code this myself(that isn't an area I have studied) but I am certain 
it could be done.

4:  Module Certification and review.  I heard something about this a while 
back but not much since.
At the least we could compile a list of common mistakes in the code, items 
to check for, etc.  I also
believe that submitters should have to provide the testing methods they 
used and the results, both
intended and actual.  This would give the code auditor an idea of what has 
been done and what hasn't
and would in itself probably result in the actual code author doing more 
testing.  The auditor could do
some re-testing on some of the tests the author performed and then audit 
the testing procedure to
ensure it was adequate.

Final note, related to the Content Manager(aka move items between modules 
of same type) module
I am working on(which is nearly done too).  It would be ideal to require 
new modules to include
stored procedures for
         A:  Getting a short description(to be used in the content manager 
module)
         B:  moving an item to another module.
         C:  copying an item to another module.
         D:  moving all/copying all.

My module basically does similar to this but instead of creating a stored 
proc for every item, which
would require integrating it into the install files and all that, I stored 
regular SQL in my module table
and then that code is executed in the ContentManager module via the Exec 
command.  I believe this
is a adequate solution for now but as modules are created and updated these 
sprocs could be moved
and when everything is done a switch over in methods could occur.  I still 
believe that the function
to move content from one instance of a module to another should be on its 
own page in the admin
area instead of in the edit page class but it should be able to use the 
author created stored procedures
also.

Wow, that was a lot.  I do feel better now though :)

Chris Farrell


At 11:30 AM 1/5/2004 +0300, you wrote:

>Changes like you made to the FAQ module should get into CVS by hook or
>by crook.  If you are getting decent peer reviews through the mailing
>list, by all means use that mechanism, but then you could still check in
>your own code after the external reviews are 'finished'.
>
>New modules like the books are a different story.  I think by default
>all code in CVS is considered a part of the core release.  Someone needs
>to make an intentional decision on whether a new module becomes part of
>the core or not.  You can't have 300 modules in the core or it will be
>too difficult to release core updates.
>
>Personally I think the core modules should be reviewed, along with the
>current third party modules, and then some scheme is decided like -
>these 10 modules are in the core, these 10 modules are in add-on pack 1,
>these 7 modules are unsupported,...
>
>It's a discussion to have on the mailing list I think.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Farrell [mailto:ch...@cf...]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:15 AM
>To: mark mcfarlane
>Subject: Re: Faq module updates
>
>
>Mark,
>    I do not have CVS commit privlidges.  I think it was offered at one
>point but
>I declined because I *want* others to quickly review code before it is
>committed.
>This is a good thing that should be required of all developers IMHO.
>Would
>be even
>better to make a checklist of the common mistakes and apply that to the
>code audits
>or possibly write an automated code parser to check for those mistakes.
>
>    The changes(very minor) that I made to the FAQ module are already in
>the
>release which
>suggests that it is in CVS also.  The changes should be present in any
>rainbow build
>1.3.0.1755b or later.  The code is also in the codeswap area.
>
>    Perhaps I should ask for CVS commit permissions.  Considering the
>much
>requested expired content
>feature for articles/annoucement is not submitted, the books module is
>not
>submitted, etc.  I did these
>out of popular request, I saw people in the forums asking for them and
>it
>sounded like a good idea.
>
>Chris
>
>
>At 09:23 PM 12/30/2003 +0300, you wrote:
> >Did you make changes to your copy of the FAQ module or to the CVS
> >version on SourceForge?
> >
> >Any way to get it into Sourceforge?
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Farrell [mailto:ch...@cf...]
> >Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 6:11 AM
> >To: mark mcfarlane
> >Subject: hrmm
> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >    I uploaded the FAQ module.  Thing is, Manu posted it as part of the
>
> >release for 1.3.0.1755b and on, that is why I didn't post it.  Forgot
> >that.
> >
> >    I posted it anyway but I'll remove it once he gets the FAQ module
> >on teh Rainbow site.
> >I added a few short items in the last few days also.  The UI of the FAQ
> >module needs a overhaul
> >in my opinion, too cluttery.  Maybe alternating colors for each item
>and
> >
> >sub groupings or something.
> >
> >Chris