Nah, this really needs to be a separate project, at the same level as trinidad and plugins. There are most definitely cases where a branch is necessary, and for those we have to use branches, but separate projects mean that you can:
- widely test them (they'll be built and downloadable) - the code won't bit-rot! Put it on a branch, and unless someone is actively maintaining that branch, it'll rapidly reach the point where it won't compile. The way I see it, we'll want the same structure as trinidad: trinidad-sandbox-build trinidad-sandbox-api trinidad-sandbox-impl trinidad-sandbox-demo The point there being that if the code is ever going to be merged into trunk, it has to adopt the same conventions (use the plugins to build the component and JSP, etc.) so it can be cleanly moved over. -- Adam On 12/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah, if others agree, I will create *branch* for that and play with Danny's contribution. @Danny: do you already have signed the CLA ? Contact me offline if you have questions on that -M On 12/19/06, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally like the latter.. Unfortunately very few things can be > developed in a Vacuume. At the very least it should have it's own copy > of impl. > > Scott > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > Looks like all here have already agreed on that one. > > What do you have in mind? > > a *separate* project with trinidad-api/-impl as dependency, > > where we can "test" components like the popup from danny? > > > > Or a *branch* that really acts as a sandbox to "play" with ideas on > > components > > and when stable (or close to it) the stuff get's merged into _core_ ? > > > > -M > > > > On 12/14/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'd like to add a new sandbox project to trinidad, as a parallel > >> directory > >> to trinidad and plugins. This'd give us a place to add more substantial > >> contributions - Danny Robinson's popup, for example - and give them > >> time to be played around with, fixed up, APIs tweaked, etc., before > >> moving > >> in to the main libraries. It'd also give me a chance for committers > >> like > >> me to add experimental features that definitely shouldn't go into the > >> trunk > >> immediately, or perhaps ever (some ideas I've been toying with for > >> multi-component validation, for example). > >> > >> Feedback? +1 from me. ;) > >> > >> -- Adam > >> > > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
