geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Which dojo?
Date Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:13:02 GMT

On Jul 15, 2009, at 7:47 PM, Rex Wang wrote:

> I think the main reason why the new war has the different structure  
> with the old one is:
> in the pom.xml of ext\trunk\geronimo-dojo-0.4.3, only check out the  
> files in "src" to target/resource
>                     <execution>
>                         <id>checkout</id>
>                         <phase>generate-resources</phase>
>                         <goals>
>                             <goal>checkout</goal>
>                         </goals>
>                         <configuration>
>                           <checkoutDirectory>${project.basedir}/ 
> target/resources</checkoutDirectory>
>                             <connectionUrl>scm:svn:http://svn.dojotoolkit.org/src/tags/release-0.4.3/src/

> </connectionUrl>
>                         </configuration>
>                     </execution>
>
> I just tried "scm:svn:http://svn.dojotoolkit.org/src/tags/release-0.4.3/ 
> ", and the JMX and LDAP portlet seems working correctly, but the  
> other three still have some problems to show the tree.

I couldn't figure out what the dojo build.xml or build shell scripts  
were doing, but it looked to me like the dojo.js in our war file was  
really different from the dojo.js in svn.  I was hoping that only the  
dojo.js was actually used.... but obviously I was wrong.

Unless you can figure out a better svn-checkout-from-dojo solution I  
think I'd try putting all the dojo files we need into src/main/ 
resources in the externals project.  I can do this pretty easily,  
probably more easily than from a patch.... let me know.

thanks
david jencks

>
> -Rex
>
> 2009/7/16 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
>> tried it.
>>
>> 1.
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
>> mvn clean install
>> success!
>>
>> 2.
>> modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff
>> the patch in attachment shows the modification.
>> build successfully
>>
>> 3.
>> I did not build the entire server, but just remove the old one, and  
>> install the new one.
>> I believe only the debug-views portlets use this legacy dojo,  
>> because when I stop the dojo-legacy-tomcat plugin, only the  
>> debugviews-console-tomcat web project stopped autoly. and I also  
>> searched all the jsps underneath plugins folder in the server build  
>> tree, only show the ones from debugviews holding reference to "/ 
>> dojo/0.4/dojo.js"
>>
>> results:
>> Unfortunately, the debugviews portlet don't display corretly...
>>
>> I make some screen shot. Shall we open a jira for this so that I  
>> can upload them, which apparently shows dojo not work correctly?
>
> Or we could try to fix them :-)
>
> I looked at the two war files and they are different and I wonder  
> what we actually use.
>
> old war (geronimo-dojo-legacy):
>   -rw-r--r--    151841  15-May-2007  02:11:02  dojo.js
>   -rw-r--r--    326567  15-May-2007  02:11:04  dojo.js.uncompressed.js
>   -rw-r--r--      1170  15-May-2007  02:06:02  flash6_gateway.swf
>   -rw-r--r--      2364  15-May-2007  02:06:02  iframe_history.html
>   -rw-r--r--     11346  15-May-2007  02:06:02  LICENSE
>   -rw-r--r--     13133  14-Jul-2009  15:01:02  META-INF/LICENSE
>   -rw-r--r--       587  14-Jul-2009  15:01:02  META-INF/NOTICE
>   -rw-r--r--      1609  15-May-2007  02:11:32  src/a11y.js
> ......
> everything else is under src/
>
> new war (geronimo-dojo-0.4.3):
> just the contents of src from geronimo-dojo-legacy.
>
> So what do we actually use here?  if its just dojo.js we can shrink  
> it by leaving out the uncompressed.js and all the little files.  If  
> its just the little files under src we can use the new war and  
> change the references to leave out the "src/" bit.  Maybe I can come  
> up with an alternate profile to build a war with just dojo.js in it??
>
> wishing I understood javascript delivery even a little bit...
> david jencks
>
>>
>> HTH
>> Rex.
>>
>>
>> 2009/7/15 Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com>
>> I'd like to try it :-)
>> -Rex
>>
>> 2009/7/15 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.
>>
>> I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3.  I  
>> can't find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy  
>> svn repo.  I cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it  
>> that uses the maven scm plugin to check out the source so it can be  
>> packaged easily.  I wonder if someone could try this out and see if  
>> it works?
>>
>> -- check out new war project and build it
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
>> cd geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
>> mvn clean install
>>
>> -- modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff so that
>> geronimo-dojo-legacy is not built
>> the dojo-legacy-jetty and dojo-legacy-tomcat plugins use the  
>> geronimo-dojo-0.4.3-1.0-SNAPSHOT war file instead of the geronimo- 
>> dojo-legacy war.
>>
>> -- build the server and see if the parts that use the legacy dojo  
>> still work  (debug views??? I'm not sure)
>>
>> many thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>
>> Hey David,
>>
>> I'm starting to take a look at it today.
>>
>> They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the  
>> patch
>> to use it?
>>
>> Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change  
>> 18 things at once and then can't tell what change broke what  
>> feature :-)
>>
>> I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also.  I think  
>> I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and  
>> haven't seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much  
>> one way or another.
>>
>> I built with the patch and ran testsuite on Jetty. Everything  
>> looked good to me (except for a corba-testsuite test that hung).
>>
>> Jay,
>> If you can test with the latest Dojo version and things look good  
>> to you, I'd say go ahead and apply the updates.
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>>
>> <dojo-legacy.patch>
>
>


Mime
View raw message