cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Lowe <mel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Dependencies
Date Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:50:53 GMT
I'd thought about the plugin idea for managing the build, as I've a
maven script thats pretty much ready to be ported out into a plugin.

Reinhard what's your view on this as you seem to have a different
vision? How possible is it to have installable blocks? For example
I've had a few problems using a forms block built with 2.1.7-dev, with
2.1.6.

Looking at it there doesn't seem to be a huge reason why the blocks
couldn't be installable, i guess compatability testing against release
versions would be needed. But I cant get passed thinking that its all
supposed to be java.

I might not know what I'm talking about but I don't see the
comparision between httpd server and a framework as the same thing.
The users are different as well as the technologies.

Folks developing java webapps, expect to have jar files they need to
stick in WEB-INF/lib deploy to a container such as tomcat and run the
thing.

When I'm doing sys admin stuff i like using vi, running configure
scripts and makefiles. But i wouldn't code java using vi.

I've been going through the svn logs. Are there's any posts in the
archieves where I can brush up on what the road map is?

Mark

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:30:18 +0100, Giacomo Pati <giacomo@otego.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Mark Lowe wrote:
> >>What are the exact reasons you don't like a source
> >>distribution?
> >
> >
> > If I were working on my own then there's not a huge problem, but this
> > isn't the case. There are several agencies involved and the usual
> > political difficulties when changing things like build files and
> > versions.  Someone walking into this to do a request fix. but has no
> > previous knowledge of the application gets bogged down, having to
> > understand that cocoon needs building, the build scripts have grown in
> > complication to the point of being unmaintainable.
> >
> > Being able to have a cocoon based project, define the dependencies in
> > the project.xml (or even an ant build file) build your source code and
> > webapp resources into a war, would be a huge step in the right
> > direction. Its the little things that count.Someone on the original
> > thread mentioned the classic ./configure;make with
> > ./build.sh;:/cocoon.sh , isn't that the point?
> 
> Cocoon has grown beyond the 'it's a framework' status IMHO. It is an
> infratructure similar to the Apache HTTPD where you need a well defined
> deployment strategy/facility. If you take it as that even Maven users
> will find their way through it as we do for nearly two years now with
> success (from customers as well as from our developers POV).
> 
> One problem is that there isn't one golden way doing project/webapps
> with Cocoon. I'm sure if we start a "write down how you do project
> management/development with Cocoon in a wiki page" contest we suddenly
> will have dozends of ways to do it as most of us have developed their
> own way of doing it as the needs are different from group to group. Most
> of the people here use Ant others use Maven. Just this allows for
> different variations on doing it.
> 
> We use a "home grown" Maven plugin developed with the help and visions
> of other people here that allows us to have short development cycles
> (just save your changes and reload your browser), the ability to build a
> Cocoon suited to the needs for the app in development by just executing
> a Maven goal, and a way to create a deployment infrastructure project
> where our Cocoon apps can be deployed into a well built Cocoon by just
> executing Maven. The war deployment way has never worked for us as we
> don't have (and don't want) the single app for one Cocoonn instance
> similar as we don't do a sigle webapp for a single HTTPD instance.
> 
> If once the "real blocks" a reality things might change again but until
> than we are quite happy with it.
> 
> Giacomo
> 
> > Mark
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:34:05 +0100, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>and without requiring to compile the
> >>>>>framework itself.
> >>>>
> >>>>We know this - we are working on getting rid of the compilation step
with 2.2 again.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'll shutup then.
> >>
> >>Just wondering...
> >>
> >>Which part of calling "./build.sh" is the big problem again? :-P
> >>
> >>..but seriously - from a user's point of view:
> >>What are the exact reasons you don't like a source
> >>distribution?
> >>
> >>cheers
> >>--
> >>Torsten
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Otego AG                                  Tel:   +41 (0)1  240 00 55
> Giacomo Pati, CTO                         Mobile:+41 (0)79 262 21 04
> Apache Software Foundation Member         Mailto:giacomo@apache.org
> Hohlstrasse 216                           Mailto:Giacomo.Pati@otego.com
> CH-8004 Zuerich                           http://www.otego.com
> 
> 
>

Mime
View raw message