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

[Victor S. <vsa...@ho...>]

Hi Matt:

>Since we have not released a 1.0 I think there is some license to refactor
>packages a little more than if 1.0 was already released. The

That's ok, and I agree 100%, when it's necessary.

refactoring
>that makes sense to me is webwork.core and webwork.example. Under
>webwork.core, I would propose webwork.core.view to contain taglib, 
>velocity,

>and xslt related stuff. This will make it easier for deployment and further
>growth.

Agreed... but why the f*** did webwork.action,webwork.config had to be 
touched? This was not necessary. WebWork has been a mature product for a 
long time now. Heck, the only reason I still run Windows is because I have 
apps that I can only run there.... And all the rest of the webwork packaging 
could have changed, to webwork.timbuktu.taglib, but it wouldn't mean 
recompilation of just about every Action you had in the planet.

WebWork did not come out yesterday, and a lot of people have stuff in 
production using it (including me), so thanks for giving me extra work :)

>Yes, don't need this because we could use Ant to handle this but I
>do think it is needed to make it a cleaner separation.
>
>For the distribution, I think we should have a webwork.war (deploy examples
>and test), webwork-taglib.jar, webwork-xslt.jar, webwork-velocity.jar,
>webwork-all.jar (all views together), webwork-example.jar. We need the
>ability to differentiate releases for view support and examples.
>
>Here are my opinions what is yours.
>

Please read this article carefully,

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000356.html

It shows you the differences between perception and reallity.

May God help us all...

>-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
>
>
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx