Thread: [Webwork-user] Re: [Webwork-devel] Intergrate with OpenSymphony?
Brought to you by:
baldree,
rickardoberg
Menu
▾
▴
webwork-user
|
From: <ma...@sm...> - 2002-07-01 21:26:22
|
Of course, this assuming they still want us ;-). On Mon, 01 July 2002, ma...@sm... wrote > > Ok. It's time to bring up a former heated subject. Back > in March, there was a topic concerning moving WW under > Opensymphony. The conclusion of the debate was just to > hang out and wait. Since then, a lot has changed and I > think it is time to bring this subject up again. I > think WW could benefit from the exposure, common > infrastructure, developers, etc. > > So, I'll start off and say +1. What do you say? > > -Matt > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel |
|
From: Joe W. <jo...@tr...> - 2002-07-02 11:42:28
|
As someone from the OpenSymphony camp and a very big fan of WebWork, you get my +1. Though I would like to point out that if WW is under the same umbrella as the other OSym tools it does not mean you have to start using them (or vice-versa). Oh yeah, please don't impose the com.opensymphony package namespace on WebWork (or in fact any rules)! Cheers, -Joe Walnes On Mon, 01 July 2002, ma...@sm... wrote > Ok. It's time to bring up a former heated subject. Back > in March, there was a topic concerning moving WW under > Opensymphony. The conclusion of the debate was just to > hang out and wait. Since then, a lot has changed and I > think it is time to bring this subject up again. I > think WW could benefit from the exposure, common > infrastructure, developers, etc. > > So, I'll start off and say +1. What do you say? |
|
From: Hani S. <ha...@fo...> - 2002-07-02 13:20:42
|
Ok, THIS is what I wanted to hear! +1 from me if it doesn't impose anything on either camp, and people still have the choice of living life as it currently stands. Hani (slowly tiptoeing into the webwok world) On 7/2/02 7:41 AM, "Joe Walnes" <jo...@tr...> wrote: > As someone from the OpenSymphony camp and a very big fan of WebWork, you > get my +1. > > Though I would like to point out that if WW is under the same umbrella as > the other OSym tools it does not mean you have to start using them (or > vice-versa). > > Oh yeah, please don't impose the com.opensymphony package namespace on > WebWork (or in fact any rules)! > > Cheers, > -Joe Walnes > > On Mon, 01 July 2002, ma...@sm... wrote >> Ok. It's time to bring up a former heated subject. Back >> in March, there was a topic concerning moving WW under >> Opensymphony. The conclusion of the debate was just to >> hang out and wait. Since then, a lot has changed and I >> think it is time to bring this subject up again. I >> think WW could benefit from the exposure, common >> infrastructure, developers, etc. >> >> So, I'll start off and say +1. What do you say? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-developers mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers |
|
From: Aapo L. <aap...@pr...> - 2002-07-02 13:59:29
|
What side effects does this integration drag in? Currently WebWork does not have many dependencies to external 3rd party components and I think it is a good keep it as separated as possible. It makes intallation easier and WebWork is easier to understand if it does not have too many dependencies. How would this integration change things? OS has FormTags and maybe WebWork should then drop it's Taglib and focus more on HMVC architecture. Also there seems to be an interesting refactoring ahead if there are any plans to use OSCore. But for me, it's ok to integrate with OS. We already have Jira, so this sounds quite logical as a next step. Kind regards, Aapo Laakkonen |
|
From: <fbe...@py...> - 2002-07-02 14:10:24
|
You should look at mailing list archive for the merger discussions that took place a few months ago. Cheers, ___________________________ Francois Beauregard, b.ing. Vice-president Recherche et developpement Pyxis Technologies www.pyxis-tech.com T : (450) 681-9094, poste 102 F : (450) 681-5758 fbe...@py... -----Original Message----- From: web...@li... [mailto:web...@li...]On Behalf Of Aapo Laakkonen Sent: July 2, 2002 9:59 AM To: web...@li...; ope...@li... Subject: [Webwork-user] RE: Intergrate with OpenSymphony? What side effects does this integration drag in? Currently WebWork does not have many dependencies to external 3rd party components and I think it is a good keep it as separated as possible. It makes intallation easier and WebWork is easier to understand if it does not have too many dependencies. How would this integration change things? OS has FormTags and maybe WebWork should then drop it's Taglib and focus more on HMVC architecture. Also there seems to be an interesting refactoring ahead if there are any plans to use OSCore. But for me, it's ok to integrate with OS. We already have Jira, so this sounds quite logical as a next step. Kind regards, Aapo Laakkonen ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Webwork-user mailing list Web...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user |
|
From: Matt B. <ma...@sm...> - 2002-07-05 15:37:42
|
Well, so far there seems to be a consensus to move WW under OS's umbrella.
Great! Now what? I propose the following -
1. Migrate WW with Opensymphony.
- The focus is to move the code and issue tracking to OS. I assume I would
work with Mike to make this transition happen.
- WW on SF will reference the new location. CVS and other components will be
turned off.
- WW's issue tracking on JIRA should be migrated to OS's.
- WW documentation will be changed to HTML and moved from DocBook. DocBook
code will be removed from source tree. I hate having to tote DocBook crap
around in the source tree.
- Integrate WW into OS's site.
- Migrate WW's developers to OS. Inactive developers would not be migrated.
- OS website and SF update recommendation
1. Does OS need 13 mailing lists? I suggest one general mail list, one
per module, and one cvs mail list. There should be no need to cross post
messages. If the message pertains to the group, then send it there;
otherwise, send it to the module specific list. If traffic is light enough,
then one general and one cvs would be fine with me.
2. The news announcements seem out of sync with the home page. I know it
is a pain to keep them in sync, but I think it is important since potential
new users will first read the news announcements on SF. If you decide not to
use it, then I suggest turn it off or delete old announcements and announce
that announcements are posted on the home page.
3. As a user, I don't see where to go for issue tracking. Is this on the
main web site? If so, I don't see it. Ahh!, you have to click on a product
to see the link at the bottom. That is fine, but I suggest that a brief
paragraph and link concerning issue tracking should be on the main page.
2. Announce migration.
- WW will release 1.2.
- After 1.2 release, it's time to announce WW's move. <plug>Mike should do
this.</plug>
3. Announce WW release
- This announcement will follow the migration announcement and it will be
either 1.2 or 1.3.
4. Begin work on leveraging the synergy of the merge.
- No major integration work will begin until 1.3 is released. After it is
release, a 1.3 CVS branch will be created and maintained for bug purposes.
- Integration work will be slated for 2.0 release. This work will include
leveraging synergies.
- IMO, I believe a key to OS is concise well-built building blocks. A
developer can choose to use only OS-Cache, Sitemesh, WW, FormTags,
OS-Workflow, or all of them. Abstracting out core functionality like bean
manipulation, configuration, etc. just makes sense. With core pieces
abstracted, you have a leaner, easier to maintain, easier to extend, easier
for developers to comprehend, and more popular modules. This abstraction
creates common core pieces that become rock solid because the extra review
and use they receive.
5. Synergy work
- Leverage a common infrastructure - nightly builds, build scripts,
automated tests, docs (this will be done in step 1 for web site)
- Leverage OS Core work. This includes a common bean util, configuration,
and more.
- Leverage other modules where it makes sense.
- It would be nice if the main website was redone utilizing most, if not
all, of the modules as a solid example of best practices with the modules.
Then the website itself would be a module that would be released and
available for download.
Comments on the plan?
-Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Walnes" <jo...@tr...>
To: <web...@li...>;
<ope...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:41 AM
Subject: [Webwork-user] Re: [Webwork-devel] Intergrate with OpenSymphony?
> As someone from the OpenSymphony camp and a very big fan of WebWork, you
> get my +1.
>
> Though I would like to point out that if WW is under the same umbrella as
> the other OSym tools it does not mean you have to start using them (or
> vice-versa).
>
> Oh yeah, please don't impose the com.opensymphony package namespace on
> WebWork (or in fact any rules)!
>
> Cheers,
> -Joe Walnes
>
> On Mon, 01 July 2002, ma...@sm... wrote
> > Ok. It's time to bring up a former heated subject. Back
> > in March, there was a topic concerning moving WW under
> > Opensymphony. The conclusion of the debate was just to
> > hang out and wait. Since then, a lot has changed and I
> > think it is time to bring this subject up again. I
> > think WW could benefit from the exposure, common
> > infrastructure, developers, etc.
> >
> > So, I'll start off and say +1. What do you say?
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-user mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user
>
>
|
|
From: Patrick L. <pli...@ho...> - 2002-07-05 16:08:42
|
> - WW documentation will be changed to HTML and moved from DocBook. DocBook > code will be removed from source tree. I hate having to tote DocBook crap > around in the source tree. Yeah, I went with DocBook in OSCore and OSWorkflow initially, but gave up on it. Documentation should be simple enough for the developers, with the limited time we have, to be able to open up some crappy WYSIWG editor and tap away at the keyboard for a couple minutes. > 1. Does OS need 13 mailing lists? Yes, we hate our mailing lists, but the admin tools don't have any way to remove them! We'll have to bug the SF people directly I suppose. We really only want os-dev, os-users, and os-cvsmail. > 2. The news announcements seem out of sync with the home page. I know it > is a pain to keep them in sync, but I think it is important since potential > new users will first read the news announcements on SF. If you decide not to > use it, then I suggest turn it off or delete old announcements and announce > that announcements are posted on the home page. Also a good point. I'd go for deleting them and then posting a single item pointing to the new site. > 3. As a user, I don't see where to go for issue tracking. Is this on the > main web site? If so, I don't see it. Ahh!, you have to click on a product > to see the link at the bottom. That is fine, but I suggest that a brief > paragraph and link concerning issue tracking should be on the main page. At the top, "Bugs/Tasks"... but yes, the site could use some work to make it more user friendly. > - IMO, I believe a key to OS is concise well-built building blocks. A > developer can choose to use only OS-Cache, Sitemesh, WW, FormTags, > OS-Workflow, or all of them. Abstracting out core functionality like bean > manipulation, configuration, etc. just makes sense. With core pieces > abstracted, you have a leaner, easier to maintain, easier to extend, easier > for developers to comprehend, and more popular modules. This abstraction > creates common core pieces that become rock solid because the extra review > and use they receive. Very well said, that's always been a core goal with all the code and should continue to be a primary focus. > - It would be nice if the main website was redone utilizing most, if not > all, of the modules as a solid example of best practices with the modules. > Then the website itself would be a module that would be released and > available for download. Yes, the website redesign should include taking advantage of all the modules possible. It is currently also updated every hour from CVS, which is probably something we should continue doing, even after the overhaul. |
|
From: Matt B. <ma...@sm...> - 2002-07-05 17:38:14
|
> > > 1. Does OS need 13 mailing lists? > > Yes, we hate our mailing lists, but the admin tools don't have any way to > remove them! We'll have to bug the SF people directly I suppose. We really > only want os-dev, os-users, and os-cvsmail. > You can delete them or not make them public. |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X