beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eddie O'Neil <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject reorganizing netui-blank [was: [Re: beehive-914 -- started yet?]]
Date Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:09:39 GMT
All--

  I've got a patch ready which will reorganize the
<dist-root>/samples/netui-blank web project from a source-in model
like:

  fooWeb/
    Controller.java
    index.jsp
    WEB-INF/
      web.xml
      src/
        build.xml
        build.properties
        Foo.java

to a source-peer model like:

  fooWeb/
    build.xml
    build.properties
    src/
      Foo.java
    web/
      index.jsp
      Controller.java
      WEB-INF/
        web.xml

This brings the OOTB NetUI project model in-line with that prescribed
by Tomcat and used in many projects.  It's also what Adriano suggested
and used for his NetBeans project.

  We're getting in the last days before 1.0 here, so we need to do two things:

1) agree that this is the right thing to do
2) review the patch in this bug --
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEEHIVE-921

Please do both; if you disagree with (1), say so!  :)

Once / if we agree on this, I'll commit it and take a couple of hours
to rework some documentation.  And, hopefully we can branch and ship
1.0.  :)

Eddie



On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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