RE: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux]
-Original Message- From: Erik Beeson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux] Jason says 7 jars, Hani says 1, Pat says 2. I have two things to say. Ummm... No. I said the real question was Then said I thought one Webwork jar was enough. First, should webwork-2.0.jar include the code in xwork-1.0.jar, or should it depend on it? One way makes webwork-2.0.jar stand alone, the other keeps the webwork (not xwork) specific code abstracted from xwork code. I think we could include the xwork-1.0.jar in the distribution, and it would need to be in the classpath when you run webwork, just like it needs commons-logging, etc. Second, maybe there should be one separate jar for the view code? Why? Webwork is going to be almost ALL view code, since we're abstracting out the command pattern stuff into xwork. So I guess in a way, there is a separate jar for the view code, it's just called Webwork :-) Third, all of this should be configurable via build.properties, so one could have a single webwork-2.0.jar with everything included, or one could have more smaller jars as Jason suggested. Again, I didn't suggest it, and don't think it's a good idea. I also don't think building xwork into webwork is a good idea, since they'll be separate CVS modules. I guess the real question is what should the default be? Maybe 2 files, like Pat said, and have the web tied view code in webwork.jar and the non web view code in xwork.jar? Ok, so 3 things to say. --Erik Jason --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux]
+1 - Original Message - From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:18 AM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux] See http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/XWork+1.0+Mission+Statement And http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/WebWork%202.0%20Mission%20Statement Basically, Xwork is going to be the core generic command pattern implementation. Webwork 2.0 is going to be an MVC framework tailored for the web and built on Xwork 1.0. So the real question here is whether it makes sense to partition Webwork 2.0 into: Webwork-core Webwork-el Webwork-jsp Webwork-velocity Webwork-xslt Webwork-jasperreports Webwork-freemarket There may be later extensions to Xwork as well (JMSWork?, MailWork?). Personally, I think Webwork is small enough to stand as one module with all of the view types included. -Original Message- From: Philipp Meier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux] On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:37:45AM -0800, Jason Carreira wrote: Oh, other than the ThreadLocal thing, there are also remaining questions about Ognl and whether we can plug in our EL, or whether it should be undertaken to re-architect our existing EL for performance. I want to propose to partition the xwork in several (independent) modules. Because I e.g. do not use jsp or velicity, and because I do not contribute to the development, it would be nice to seperate them from the core stuff. It makes sense to me to have the following cvs modules: * xwork (or xwork-core) * xwork-web (ServletDispatcher and FilterDispatcher and so on.) * xwork-view-el (used by jsp and velocity) * xwork-view-jsp * xwork-view-velocity * xwork-view-xslt * xwork-view-freemarker * xwork-jms (Dispatcher and helpers for JMS) * xwork-mail (Dispatcher and helpers for Mail) Does this make sense? I see xwork growing and growing and becoming more and more confusing. On the other hand, size does matter and we must consider that every view type needs it's supporting libraries. My 0.02, -billy. -- Meisterbohne Söflinger Straße 100 Tel: +49-731-399 499-0 eLösungen 89077 Ulm Fax: +49-731-399 499-9 --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux]
Jason Carreira wrote: So the real question here is whether it makes sense to partition Webwork 2.0 into: Webwork-core Webwork-el Webwork-jsp Webwork-velocity Webwork-xslt Webwork-jasperreports Webwork-freemarket There may be later extensions to Xwork as well (JMSWork?, MailWork?). Personally, I think Webwork is small enough to stand as one module with all of the view types included. Yup. I have no issue with adding build targets that build the above specific stuff, but separating it into separate CVS modules just brings more headache than it's worth. /Rickard --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux]
I think that two jars is a good middle ground: xwork-1.0.jar webwork-2.0.jar This is what we've been planning on all along. -Pat - Original Message - From: Hani Suleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux] -1 from me, I like that it's one nice webwork.jar to plop in. Having to pay another 30k for velocity support (or whatever else I don't use currently) isn't such a big deal. It's too jakartaish to have your product be 50 jars. On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 01:15 PM, Rickard Öberg wrote: Jason Carreira wrote: So the real question here is whether it makes sense to partition Webwork 2.0 into: Webwork-core Webwork-el Webwork-jsp Webwork-velocity Webwork-xslt Webwork-jasperreports Webwork-freemarket There may be later extensions to Xwork as well (JMSWork?, MailWork?). Personally, I think Webwork is small enough to stand as one module with all of the view types included. Yup. I have no issue with adding build targets that build the above specific stuff, but separating it into separate CVS modules just brings more headache than it's worth. /Rickard --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
