forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Starting a 1.0 development (Re: [Proposal] rollback)
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:43:07 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>Diwaker Gupta wrote:
>>>Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>>>>Added two new plugins for
>>>>>refactoring views into the core:
>>>>>- structurer
>>>>>- themes
>>>>>Recent changes to views with using jxtg as core component
>>>>>made the old view plugins unusable (FOR-675)
>>>>>which can not longer stay like this.
>>>>>I recommend to rollback:
>>>>>- org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view
>>>>>- org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml
>>>>>to revision -r280939 and then commit them back as views head.
>>>Why can't we just roll back trunk to a stable version, and move the 
>>>views/xhtml2 work to a new branch? I think thats much neater, and easier 
>>>both on devs and users alike. People can hack away on the views/xhtml2 
>>>branch without having to worry about breaking trunk for someone.
>>In fact this is exactly what we agreed in the IRC session:
>>Sep 19 11:17:31 <tscherler>	- we should get the xhtml2 and view internal 
>>Sep 19 11:18:03 <tscherler>	- xhtml2 should be merged into the internal 
>>views stuff, simply replace the docuemnt2html part
>>Sep 19 11:18:42 <tscherler>	- x2 plugin should provide xdocs2x2 
>>Sep 19 11:19:17 <tscherler>	- views should work with x2 input
>>Sep 19 11:21:15 <tscherler>	- we need to write a x2 to xhtml plugin
>>Sep 19 11:21:52 <tscherler>	that should be basically a bunch of contracts
>>Sep 19 11:22:19 <tscherler>	roadmap:
>>Sep 19 11:22:31 <tscherler>	1) create new branch
>>Sep 19 11:22:48 <tscherler>	2) move view stuff and x2 stuff into core
>>Sep 19 11:23:10 <tscherler>	3) resolving by both only allowed through lm
>>Sep 19 11:23:37 <tscherler>	4) create xdocs2x2 plugin
>>Sep 19 11:24:10 <tscherler>	5) create x2 to xhtml plugin
>>Sep 19 11:24:41 <tscherler>	in this branch all skins are removed
>>Sep 19 11:24:52 <tscherler>	only view is supported
>>Sep 19 11:25:19 <tscherler>	skin pipes are to be refactored to output 
> Hold on. That IRC discussion was extremely rushed at the end.
> We did not make any decisions there. Someone was going to make
> a proposal. Are you sure that a branch is the way to do this?

Yes, you are right. Lets start discussing the proposal in the open.

> Branches tend to become islands of lone development, and when
> they go on for too long, become hard to merge.

This work will touch pretty much *all* of Forrest. It will introduce:

- XHTML2 - rewrite of core processing pipelines
- Views - rewrite of core processing pipelines
- Locationmap - rewrite of core processing pipelines


> How will this branch be merged? I see some confusing quick
> comments in that IRC log, but no resolution.

We didn't foresee merging this branch, rather replacing the current trunk:

Sep 19 11:32:23 <tscherler>	that and is needed for an internal skin plugin
Sep 19 11:32:29 <rgardler>	David: after we merge this beast? -> I do not 
see us merging this branch, I see this as a compelte rewrite
Sep 19 11:32:40 <rgardler>	all the stripped out stuff goes in plugins
Sep 19 11:32:54 <tscherler>	+1
Sep 19 11:32:55 <rgardler>	we are lef with a really clean core that does 
nothing but the structurer part
Sep 19 11:33:30 <crossley>	radical. So we cease development on trunk?
Sep 19 11:33:33 <rgardler>	If you know Eclipse you'll understand the 
beuaty of this
Sep 19 11:34:02 <rgardler>	if not, think of Jedit - similar concept,
Sep 19 11:34:12 <rgardler>	JEdit does nothing but provide a text editor 
and a plugin frameowrk
Sep 19 11:34:33 <tscherler>	(02:33:47) crossley: radical. So we cease 
development on trunk?-> basically it should become a stable branch
Sep 19 11:34:47 <tscherler>	like cocoon-2.1.x
Sep 19 11:34:51 <rgardler>	Yes, make a 0.8 release and only do bug fixes
Sep 19 11:35:49 <tscherler>	that would not meet "usable trunk " approach 
but we can have 0.8 branch for that
Sep 19 11:35:58 <tscherler>	better 0.8.x
Sep 19 11:36:27 <rgardler>	I think we are in the mechanics now, that is 
easy to do onlist

And so here we are onlist ;-)

> The thing that really frightens me is the comment
> "in this branch all skins are removed". Perhaps that is
> what is needed, but we must decide and not just an offhand
> comment in an IRC log.

Yes, you raised this issue onIRC too:

Sep 19 11:28:57 <crossley>	So the old "skins" still continue to function?
Sep 19 11:29:11 <crossley>	after we merge this beast?
Sep 19 11:29:17 <tscherler>	no
Sep 19 11:29:26 <rgardler>	We can make an internal plugin that provides 
backward compatability
Sep 19 11:29:33 <tscherler>	yes
Sep 19 11:29:39 <rgardler>	I think we need to do that otherwise users 
will not upgrade
Sep 19 11:29:51 <tscherler>	+1
Sep 19 11:30:00 <crossley>	rgardler: good but is that possible
Sep 19 11:30:08 <tscherler>	yes it isd
Sep 19 11:30:22 <rgardler>	Yes, at worst we simply take trunk and make 
it a plugin ;-)
Sep 19 11:30:31 <tscherler>	+1

In other words, core will *not* have skin functionality. It will only be 
available in a (deprecated?) plugin.

> What was wrong with Thorsten's proposal to cease work
> on the old plugins and create new plugins?

This is a complete rewrite of Forrest. Doing it in a plugin will 
encorage us to reuse existing monolothic code in core.

If we had a 1.0 release already I would be proposing a 2.0 development. 
But we don't have one so this is a 1.0 development.

It could be the other way around. 0.8 becomes the branch and we do this 
work in trunk. But I believe we need to have a "spring clean" (it must 
be spring for one of our developers)


View raw message