royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Container change
Date Wed, 09 May 2018 17:12:49 GMT
Now, all that makes more sense...

So is ANT what is failing, but that should not be that way, since there's
no changes to interdependencies of libraries. If ANT was working before now
should work as well. If not I think is time to get what could be wrong in
ANT building. I could remove some Basic dependencies in Maven and saw that
by removing Group dependency from NodeBaseElement, some other projects need
Basic. I think that's what you should look at. Add Basic to those projects
that was getting the code due to HTML Basic dependency.

What we have here is not a problem of a refactor, but a hidden problem in
the way we build with ANT.

Or at least is what I see for what Piotr says in his email. I don't have
ANT setting up in my system, and I always build with maven to ensure all is
working.

Carlos


2018-05-09 18:58 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:

> We are building by ant IDE packages. This is what is failing. It's failing
> for several days already.
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018, 6:32 PM Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > 2018-05-09 16:48 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > From all of discussion I see only one advantage splitting Jewel from
> > Basic.
> > > Results in size of package. That's why I'm asking about copied classes.
> > It
> > > looks like we will have many copies of everything. If I create useful
> > Bead
> > > and you need it you will copy it.
> > >
> >
> > just explain a bit more in my response to Yishay email few seconds ago,
> > you'll see is not only about size
> > Thre's much more involved.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > After all you did the changes, so discussion is closed.
> > >
> > > It will be good if you could look into the failing build after those
> > > changes if they were the cause.
> > >
> >
> > I'm watching closely that builds doesn't break. Seems right now the build
> > is broke, but just the previous one was successful and there's not code
> > changes between, so I suppose is something not related to the code. I
> > always pass maven to all framework and examples when something that
> implies
> > moving classes or changing names or packages are in place, ensuring that
> > all compiles without problems.
> >
> >
> > > In my opinion if we reach 1.0 some day - Every changes in Core should
> be
> > > voted or waited till review on separate branch.
> > >
> >
> > That's completely right. 1.0 means a before and after. We are working
> hard
> > to make all things assemble nicely and work flawlessly. And as we think
> we
> > get that point, for me will be the right moment to make a 1.0 release.
> And
> > that means that any change should be more difficult to do, and will need
> > more consensus. Anyway, in that case, that would means for all of us the
> > same that is happen now. Changes use to imply that applications should
> > update to work accordingly to those ones. But in our case the changes are
> > very easy to do. Think in Java, and how difficult is change from Java 5
> > -6-7-8... or Spring Framework... it's very very difficult compared to a
> few
> > changes here. But our code is still beta quality, and we can expect to
> stay
> > without change a single line of code, and expect our user base grows.
> > That's utopic from all  points of view.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 yishayw <yishayjobs@hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to
> > extend
> > > > Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently,
> > but
> > > > because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had
> > > > previously worked.
> > > >
> > > > Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good
> thing
> > > > that
> > > > there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions
> and
> > > ask
> > > > questions. I think this should be encouraged.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your
> > motivation
> > > > here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages
> > depend
> > > on
> > > > which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a
> > > > difference?
> > > >
> > > > Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference
> maker.
> > > >
> > > > Yishay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message