cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: on better release and version management
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:48:33 GMT

On Tuesday, Sep 23, 2003, at 19:41 Europe/Rome, Giacomo Pati wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 16:23 Europe/Rome, Giacomo Pati wrote:
>>
>
> <SNIP/>
>
>> I agree with you that even a 'naked cocoon' (a cocoon with no
>> functional blocks) can be further modularized, even if I personally
>> don't resonate with the modularization that you propose above.
>
> Could you explain why you don't resonate? Is it that you fear
> complexity?

 From what you outlined, it seems unnecessarely complex to separate 
cocoon in so many parts. But maybe you are proposing a solution for a 
problem that I don't see.

> We're used to Centipede and Maven for some project we've done recently
> and our experience is that indeed a modularisation as I've proposed is
> quite complex with bare Ant as building tool but tools like Maven and
> Centipede are very helpfull for these kinda projects. We just need to
> make the step beyond Ant.

I'm in favor of having an easy to manage build system... but probably 
since I never used anything else but ant I'm don't know what I'd gain 
since I'm fine with the build system we have (which I wrote, so I'm 
admittedly biased).

But if anybody wants to show me the light, I'll be glad to learn 
something new ;-)

just don't know why we should modularize that much, that's all.

>> I think that we should *NOT* try to bite more than we can chew for 
>> 2.2,
>> let's avoid doing everything in one huge step or this will take us
>> another 18 months to release 2.2 and this is going to hurt us badly.
>
> ET ;-)
>
>> I would simply suggest to:
>>
>>   1) start cocoon-2.2 with code and existing build system. No blocks, 
>> no
>> documentation.
>
> If you suggest starting with just more or less core code why not move 
> to
> another build system we can build a modularized system upon?

but what do we gain? [I'm not caustic, just curious]

>>   2) remove fake block machinery from the build system of 2.2
>
> Again, choosing another build system will help here as well.

since this is a basically a cvs checkout, I don't see the issue there 
at all, but probably because I don't see the benefits of the proposed 
move.

>>   3) implements real block in 2.2
>
> I assume you mean 'real block infrastructure'.

yes

--
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message