beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Feit <richf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: beehive-914 -- started yet?
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:31:37 GMT
Sounds great!  Leaving netui-samples and netui-jsf seems like the right
thing to hold off for 1.1.

Eddie O'Neil wrote:

>  Awesome.  I'll make this change for netui-blank but will leave
>netui-jsf and netui-samples for the sake of stability.  We can fix
>those for Beehive 1.1.
>
>  This would switch the default NetUI project model to something that
>looks like this:
>
>    http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-5.0-doc/appdev/source.html
>
>which is basically:
>
>  fooWebProject/
>       web/
>       src/
>       build.xml
>       build.properties
>
>with a build that works like samples/petstoreWeb.
>
>  Any other thoughts about doing this?  
>
>Eddie
>
>
>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I definitely agree on #2 (if I'm understanding you correctly) -- I think
>>it should support the Tomcat model you're describing.  Originally I'd
>>suggested supporting both because netui-blank is in the old project
>>model, so I assumed that this is the only one we would be supporting.
>>So I support making this change...
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>1) yes, this simply adds a convenience target to beehive-imports.xml.
>>>It doesn't attempt to fix the validation problem discussed earlier --
>>>depending on how it's fixed, that might be an SVN-side issue with
>>>building the distribution.
>>>
>>>2) I agree that we are moving away from the WEB-INF/src project model
>>>and onto the Tomcat model where web/ and src/ are peers.  This target
>>>certainly could support both models, but it's just easier to have it
>>>support the one Tomcat prescribes that is widely used and is easily
>>>supported in various IDEs.  We can document how to setup a project
>>>with source-in-webapp.  If there was enough interest, we could make
>>>this change now...it only affects netui-samples, netui-blank, and
>>>netui-jsf.
>>>
>>>  Thoughts?
>>>
>>>Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Rich Feit wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I see - so this isn't the complex part of the change we were talking
>>>>about.  This is simply adding an ant target to beehive-imports.xml.  It
>>>>seems like a good addition, but one question I have is whether we should
>>>>be supporting different project models with something like this.  Seems
>>>>like we're moving away from a source-under-web-content model.  What do
>>>>you think?
>>>>Rich
>>>>
>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>> Here's the Ant that will do this; it patches
>>>>>trunk/user/beehive-imports.xml and can be run as:
>>>>>
>>>>>   $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp
>>>>>
>>>>>which will prompt for a destination directory for the project.  Or, it
>>>>>can be run like:
>>>>>
>>>>>   $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp -Dwebapp.dir
>>>>>
>>>>>which will skp the prompt since "webapp.dir" has already been provided.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this will be *really* useful and less error-prone than the
>>>>>alternative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>   <target name="new.netui.webapp"               description="Create
>>>>>a new NetUI-enabled Beehive webapp">
>>>>>       <input message="Provide a fully-qualified web project path:"
>>>>>                 addproperty="webapp.dir"/>
>>>>>
>>>>>       <copy todir="${webapp.dir}">
>>>>>           <fileset dir="${basedir}/samples/netui-blank">
>>>>>               <include name="**/*"/>
>>>>>           </fileset>
>>>>>       </copy>
>>>>>       <deploy-netui webappDir="${webapp.dir}"/>
>>>>>         <echo>Created a NetUI-enabled in ${webapp.dir}</echo>
>>>>>   </target>
>>>>></snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gotcha.  As far as the docs, I've got a placeholder in the
>>>>>>netui/projects.xml doc already that describes the cp / ant -f step.
>>>>>>So, that part is easy.  ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patch forthcoming...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, I just meant we should take a week to have people play with
it
>>>>>>>if we
>>>>>>>put it in for 1.0, that's all.  I think we'd want to get it into
the
>>>>>>>docs, too, especially where there are instructions for copying
>>>>>>>netui-blank, etc.  What do you think about that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd definitely take a look at the diff, though, even if it's
>>>>>>>something
>>>>>>>we hold until v1.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah -- I don't think it would take a week (probably just
a couple
>>>>>>>>of hours), but it's a little different than how we do things
>>>>>>>>right now
>>>>>>>>because we need to support two scenarios:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- create a new webapp
>>>>>>>>- inject the runtime files (JARs / resources) into the samples
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We've got the latter and could easily add the former.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But, we'll get very little test mileage on it in the near
term.  I
>>>>>>>>can take a crack at it and see what you think of the diff...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Definitely, this would be a great thing to have.  I have
a local
>>>>>>>>>script
>>>>>>>>>that does exactly this -- in retrospect, this should have
made
>>>>>>>>>me think
>>>>>>>>>of an ant target.  I think it's something that we should
do for
>>>>>>>>>1.1,
>>>>>>>>>unless we want to delay the release for a week or so...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's complicated.  :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We really need a target that can "seed" a Beehive
webapp including
>>>>>>>>>>all of the validation config files, runtime JARs,
and NetUI URL
>>>>>>>>>>addressable resources.  Today, this is done using
a command like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>cp -rf samples/netui-blank <project-dir>
>>>>>>>>>>ant -f ant/beehive-runtime.xml deploy.beehive.webapp.runtime
>>>>>>>>>>-Dwebapp.dir=<project-dir>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If, for example, you just do the latter, you'll end
up with a
>>>>>>>>>>webapp
>>>>>>>>>>that has the runtime but no web.xml or validation
config
>>>>>>>>>>files.  And,
>>>>>>>>>>that's kind of bad...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Would be *very* nice to have a target that just does:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.beehive.webapp -Dproject.dir=...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It could even prompt for the project.dir -- kind of
like a new
>>>>>>>>>>project
>>>>>>>>>>wizard in Ant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We could do this for 1.0, but it's not an insignificant
change.
>>>>>>>>>>It's *definitely* something we need for 1.1...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, if it's complicated at all, I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Daryl Olander wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>+1 to doing the real fix post 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I take it back...this isn't a straightforward
thing to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunately because it affects the Ant
used to provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in both the distribution and SVN builds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It wouldn't be hard to change it, but
if we're going to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>should add the beehive-netui-validator-config.xml
file (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>adding web.xml) to those as well...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree (now) having them checked in is
the right thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>unless we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>want to tackle the bigger problem of copying
all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>config files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And, I'd rather ship 1.0 and fix that
later. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, I certainly don't have an objection
to that... thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, it doesn't *have* to happen
now, but doing it now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ensures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that we're consistent. So, I'm
going to go ahead and fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>getting the compiler change in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich Feit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                             

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I haven't started it -- it
doesn't seem like anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that has to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>into v1, right? Just checking.
I did update the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>checked-in files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                         
      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the right version -- this
is just the longer-term fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to ensure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                         
      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this doesn't happen again...
:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                         
      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you started fixing
BEEHIVE-914 yet? If not, let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'll take that one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                     
            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>
>  
>

Mime
View raw message