+1
On 9/29/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
On Sep 28, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> The work we've done on the dialog support in the sandbox is showing
> clear
> earmarks of success. We can now support 100% of the functionality
> that
> actually works in the original implementation, plus have addressed
> a number
> of outstanding bug and RFE issues (plus supported a few extra
> enhancements
> like programmatic starting of a dialog that were not explicitly
> mentioned in
> an issue). I think it is now time to incorporate the results of
> this effort
> back into the mainline trunk code.
>
> Specifically, I propose to do the following:
>
> * Eliminate the original org.apache.shale.dialog (and child
> packages) code
> from shale-core.
> Yes, this is pretty abrupt, but developers who only use the APIs
> we've
> exposed for application
> use will not be affected -- it only impacts those who are using APIs
> targeted for "framework"
> users, and those folks need to be more accomodating about API
> evolution.
>
> * Create new modules under frameworks as follows:
>
> - shale-dialog (copied from sandbox shale-dialog2 with package names
> (etc.)
> changed from org.apache.shale.dialog2 to org.apache.shale.dialog.
>
> - shale-dialog-basic (copied from sandbox shale-dialog2-legacy with
> packgae names (etc.)
> changed from org.apache.shale.dialog2.legacy to
> org.apache.shale.dialog.basic.
>
> - shale-dialog-scxml (copied from sandbox shale-dialog2-scxml with
> package
> names (etc.)
> changed from org.apache.shale.dialog2.scxml to
> org.apache.shale.dialog.scxml.
>
> * Update website content in a manner consistent with the refactoring
> proposal I just sent out.
>
> * If we accept the SCXML implementation, start a vote to accept
> Rahul as a
> Shale committer.
>
> As with the refactoring proposal, I've got some time available
> starting
> tomorrow night and through the weekend to devote to these changs,
> if there
> are no objections.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Craig
