beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eddie O'Neil <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: beehive-914 -- started yet?
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:41:31 GMT
  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