Re: [Webwork-devel] refactor

[Bill B. <bi...@pr...>]

Hello,

Jim...@do... wrote:
> 
> As most people voiced, the refactor makes sense structurally and for
> deployment. If the refactor is going to happen, I believe it should happen
> now, *before* 1.0.

Agreed.

> It will be many times more painful to introduce this type of refactor (no
> features, just reorg) after 1.0 than it would right now. 

Definitely.  

> So suck it up guys and complete it. Most of the "fixing" relates to
> package naming, so make sure that the entire codebase rebuilds properly
> and the examples execute correctly. It is very important to get the view
> technology out of the true "core" of WebWork. It has never made much
> sense.

Yes.

I think a compromise is in order.  Some of the package renaming is a very
good step forward while not being very disruptive (if at all).  However,
most of the package renaming isn't necessary (moving most stuff to
common/core) because it can be done in the build.xml by specifying which
packages are part of the webwork-core.jar.  

Have pulled the latest CVS and after looking at it out here's my
recommendation.
* Keep webwork/examples.
* Move webwork/{common/core}/view up to webwork/view
* For everything else in common/core, move it back to where it was under
webwork.  This will remove most of the objections to the package cleanup.

The packages would then look like this (assuming I didn't miss anything):
  webwork.action.{client,factory,standard}
  webwork.config
  webwork.dispatcher
  webwork.examples
  webwork.expr
  webwork.util
  webwork.view.{taglib,velocity,xslt}

Which generally similar to the way it was.  This should provide sufficent
flexibility to build the jars with various contents while maintaining a
high degree of backwards compatibility.

Other suggestions:
* Make resources/web/example plural (examples).

-Bill

> jim
> 
> ma...@sm...
> Sent by: web...@li...
> 03/01/2002 03:56 PM
> 
> 
>         To:     web...@li...
>         cc:
>         Subject:        [Webwork-devel] refactor
> 
> Well, I guess there is sufficient resistence and rightly so to any
> refactoring at this time. Unless Rickard or someone directs differently, I
> would be more than happy to restore cvs tomorrow to its previous state. I
> saved off a snap shot. We can save these concerns and issues for a later
> time.
> 
> -Matt