Re: [Webwork-devel] RE: Refactorings... Again

[<ma...@sm...>]

Separating out the views allows incremental releases to support separate views. It is not whether they are causing end user problems. I think the separation is important. People can grap one jar for all view support or an individual jar. This will allow the different views to release independently.

The fact that most people are extending ActionSupport will bite people anytime we make a change. It is easier now than later. If we choose not to have the *core* package then that would be possible. I still thing we should have the *example* and a *view* package under webwork somewhere.

Just to clarify, I am proposing dropping the *common* package. I think this is confusing.

If people don't want to do anything and roll back and release as is that is fine too. I think we need people to voice up and Rickard needs to weigh in.

To speak on behalf of Kjetil, he did send out this e-mail below and there was not much feedback. *So*, lets now take time to talk this out and make a good decision before making any further changes. So it seems the next step will be to roll back and deal with refactoring later in the OS integration or deal with it now. It is not my decision I'm just trying to facilitate discussion to reach a concensus.

-Matt

**********************************************

Hi

Questions:

* Strictly speaking, Velocity and Xslt support, are addons to the WW core - IMO. Anyone?
* Should this be moved? (to f.ex src/addon lib/addon)
  - this would make container compliance even easier

Someone said something about out of date Velocity, the -dep-1.2-rc3.jar
is in CVS and I guess there are a 1.2 release out there. 
* Is there a reason NOT to get the 1.2 release into CVS?
* Should we use the -dep- file or not
  - if not we have to include commons from jakarta (I guess ?) 
     - THIS should at least not be part of the core!
* The documentation states that the later is the way to go - we should be consistent


This would make 3 builds
- core
- core-with-addon
- examples-with-addon

/kjetilhp



> 
> My opinion is that we have lost sight of what this projects original goals 
> where.  WebWork is supposed to be easy to use.  Giving the users a 
> multitude of deployment options just makes things more complicated than 
> they need to be.  Quite simply I am unconvinced that Velocity, the Taglibs,
>   and XSLT being deployed with the Action engine has ever caused problems 
> for the end user.
> 
> My advice is that we roll back the recent changes to package structure, 
> fix the examples, make sure it deploys on Tomcat, and then release WebWork 
> 1.0.
> 
> -Maurice
> 
> 
> > -Matt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kjetil Paulsen" <kje...@mo...>
> > To: "Victor Salaman" <vsa...@ho...>;
> > <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 4:53 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Webwork-devel] RE: Refactorings... Again
> >
> >
> >
> >> In my mind I just can't picture what the names mean....
> >> common == common to
> >> all components, but core == needed by all components ...
> >
> > common are common stuff to webwork :)
> > like most of the time you would use one or more of these view technologies
> > togheter with WW, and also some or all of the classes in the other common
> > packages
> >
> >> So therefore at this
> >> point I can't
> >> really tell you where to put it, all I can say is that all
> >> the configuration
> >> functionallity should be together. either all in common or
> >> all in core.
> >
> > my reason for putting it common was that XML confiurator uses 3rd party 
> > xml
> > libraries but I think maybe it should be all in core ..
> >
> > Matt, what do you say?
> >
> >>
> >>> And also the property files, we introduced
> >> common.properties, not completly
> >>> sure yet what goes in here from default.props
> >>>
> >>
> >> hehe, it's your doing, you figure it out... haha
> >
> > will do ....
> >
> >
> >>
> >> .... maybe it's time for me to branch the codebase to another
> >> project, and
> >> go back to basics, after all this is open source, and ww has
> >> a liberal
> >> license.... maybe I'm just getting old... heck, who knows. hehe
> >
> > up to you.. don't see why these changes would make you do that - the
> > functionality is the same it's just layed out in another way
> >
> > /kjetilhp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Webwork-devel mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Webwork-devel mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel