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 15:54:05 GMT
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