Re: [Webwork-devel] refactor

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

Hi Matt:

No objections as everything is the same except for adding .view (which is 
just pointless since .velocity .xml .taglib didn't hurt anyone, but makes 
people happy -- and for distro purposes 'ant' would have done a great job, 
but what the heck he :) )

/V


>From: "Matt Baldree" <ma...@sm...>
>To: "Bill Burton" <bi...@pr...>, 
><web...@li...>
>Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] refactor
>Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:13:47 -0600
>
>I think this is a good compromise and makes sense. So I would like to
>implement this plan. The planned distribution jars would be ...
>
>webwork-taglib.jar, webwork-velocity.jar, webwork-xslt.jar,
>webwork-all-views.jar, webwork-example.jar.
>
>There would only be one WAR file for running the tests and examples. If you
>have any objections, please yell before I do this by the end of the 
>weekend.
>
>-Matt
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Burton" <bi...@pr...>
>To: <kje...@mo...>; <ma...@sm...>;
><web...@li...>
>Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] refactor
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Webwork-devel mailing list
>Web...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com