Re: [Tm4j-developers] TMNav and TM4Web

[Niko S. <ni...@na...>]

Hi,

While I agree completely with the separation of the tmnav and tm4web
projects, I would like to make the suggestion to have a more clear
distinction between panckoucke, tmnav and kamal. What do you think about
spending each an own CVS module (maybe calling the two new ones
'tm4access', 'tm4ws') ? This would mean basically moving panckoucke and
kamal into an own directory structure, but I think the effort pays back
in terms of easier packaging and reusability. And of course like Kal
mentioned allowing own developing speeds for example for panckoucke and
tmnav.

Greetings,
Niko


> Kal Ahmed wrote:
> > 
> > I think I can see where you are coming from. However, I think that the
> > current division between tm4web and tmnav is about right (I'll come on
> > to the possible changes later). Currently tmnav and tm4j follow
> > different release schedules. This works because tmnav can make use of a
> > particular TM4J release and it allows the two projects to continue at
> > their own pace without one project having to wait for the other. While
> > it is (I think) possible to branch part of a CVS module, I think it is
> > generally much nicer to have separate modules for the separate
> > deliverables so that each can be labelled when it reaches a release
> > milestone. I think that it will be the case that tm4web will initially
> > develop slower than tmnav is currently developing (that is inevitable
> > because tm4web is in earlier stages at the moment) and I don't want
> > tm4web development to become a drag factor on tmnav.
> > 
> > To me, there is a nice logical distinction between the client-oriented
> > presentational features of panckoucke and the tmnav application and the
> > web publishing/web application features of tm4web. I can see them as
> > being separate SourceForge downloads - tmnav for client-side developers,
> > tm4web for server-side developers. 
> 
> I agree with you Kal. At the current state of the two applications I think
> it makes no sense to put them together in one project.
> 
> 
> > 
> > The one overlap is with kamal. Perhaps kamal should move into tm4web (or
> > we should think about creating a tm4ws module perhaps) - but I guess
> > that this depends upon how tightly tied kamal is to the panckoucke
> > libraries and whether or not we could achieve a degree of independence
> > like exists between tmnav and tm4j.
> 
> Kamal is/will be a webservice-representation of a subset of the
panckoucke-Interface.
> So it depends on panckoucke at the moment. I'm working on the internal
interfaces at the time
> and it will be more independent of the navigation backend. But I'm not
sure if it makes
> really sense to decouple the two completely.
> 
> It think the only overlap of tm4web and kamal is that both are server
side applications
> and both use a servlet engine to provide it's services. But the goals
of both are different:
> tm4web provides a web-based interface for 'users', kamal provides a
webservice based
> programming interface for 'user-applications'.
> So what is the benefit, if we put tm4web and kamal together in one
project?