Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 815037D5C for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 96797 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2011 08:55:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 96754 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2011 08:55:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 96746 invoked by uid 99); 28 Oct 2011 08:55:40 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:55:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gcjmu-myfaces-dev@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.12] (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:55:31 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJiDU-000705-Qq for dev@myfaces.apache.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:55:08 +0200 Received: from cm209-171.liwest.at ([81.10.209.171]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:55:08 +0200 Received: from werner.punz by cm209-171.liwest.at with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:55:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@myfaces.apache.org From: Werner Punz Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] why do we overcomplicate our code soooo much? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:54:30 +0200 Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <1319753799.61080.YahooMailNeo@web27807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cm209-171.liwest.at User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 In-Reply-To: <1319753799.61080.YahooMailNeo@web27807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Mhh just a suggestion without having looked at the code, because I am "decraping" the javascripts currently that way, we dont we split the functionality apart to get a lean core and some extension for people which just need the extended functionality. IMHO the better approach than to push everything into one handler. Werner Am 10/28/11 12:16 AM, schrieb Mark Struberg: > Hi folks! > > I'm just comparing the original proposal of the resource handler from Jakob (which works fine) > > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/relative-resource-handler/source/checkout > > and what we do have now in myfaces-commons-resource-handler > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/commons/trunk/myfaces-commons-resourcehandler (has problems with multiple servlets - fixed that itmt) > > > and to be honest - I'm freaking out a bit! > Blowing up the code (with almost the same functionality) to 10 times the amount of code and copying tons of code from our other projects over cannot be the right solution. Really, please be honest and just compare the functionality > > original config parsing: 110 LOC, working well (java6 specific) > > new version: 20 classes with ~1800 LOC! > > And all that just to support java5? I cannot believe that! Even if I need to hack all this myself (without any JAX parser or other utility), I don't need more than 200 LOC! > > -> if there is no really good explanation then lets throw the crap away. > > > next stop: > > > package org.apache.myfaces.commons.resourcehandler.resource; > > original: 3 classes, ~1000 LOC, working > > myfaces-commons-resource-handler: 13 classes, ~ 2400 LOC > > containing lots of functionality which we NEVER will need! > > But at least this code is undocumented (almost no single javadoc) and contains no unit tests > > > I'm really in the mood to rollback this project and start if all over again... > > > Really, please, the projects intention was to REPLACE the overloaded crap we have in the JFS spec as resource handler with a LIGHT and powerful alternative. Thus this shall not get bloated and filled with crap copied all over the place. > > > LieGrue, > strub > >