stanbol-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rupert Westenthaler <rupert.westentha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Enhancer engine deps problem for releases
Date Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:44:49 GMT
Hi Fabian,

do you think that would also mean to change the package
structure/module names of those engine or do you think it is OK for
any EnhancementEngine that is managed by the Stanbol Community to use
"org.apache.stanbol.enhancer.engine.{engine-name}" as artifactId and
package name.

Regardless of that +1 from my side.

best
Rupert



On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Olivier Grisel
<olivier.grisel@ensta.org> wrote:
> Sounds reasonable to me. +1 for refactorings that improve the release
> flow and lower the maintenance burden.
>
> 2012/11/8 Fabian Christ <christ.fabian@googlemail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am investigating the current SNAPSHOT deps of the Stanbol components in
>> order to find out what can be released and in which order.
>>
>> In the enhancer we have the problematic situation that we have enhancement
>> engines that rely on other components, like the refactor engine that relies
>> on rules.
>>
>> This is problematic to cut an Enhancer release because we would need to
>> release, e.g. the rules component first.
>>
>> I would like to prevent such situations. IMO it would be a more natural fit
>> if engines, that rely on a certain component, are removed from the Enhancer
>> source tree and moved to the source tree of that particular component or
>> even to a third place.
>>
>> The Engines included in the enhancer/engines directory should only be
>> engines that do not have such dependencies. If this is the case, releasing
>> the enhancer with all independent engines raises no problems anymore.
>>
>> My proposal would be to create a new top level folder in the source tree
>> for engines that rely on the availability of other components. We could
>> call it "enhancer-thirdparty-engines". This could also be a place for
>> contributed engines that we do not want to be in the default
>> enhancer/engines structure. Such engines will be released independently and
>> are not part of an Enhancer release anymore.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> --
>> Fabian
>> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
>
>
>
> --
> Olivier
> http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel



-- 
| Rupert Westenthaler             rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
| Bodenlehenstra├če 11                             ++43-699-11108907
| A-5500 Bischofshofen

Mime
View raw message