stanbol-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Grisel <olivier.gri...@ensta.org>
Subject Re: Enhancer engine deps problem for releases
Date Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:37:04 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message