Rich-- The diff looks good -- making this change definitely makes the webapp build process simpler as it removes another tmp directory to clean / manage.
Nice... Eddie On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, that's great. I'd been doing a build.dist.full, then running a > script to expand the dists and run tests against them. This is nicer. :) > > Rich > > Eddie O'Neil wrote: > > > You can run a full-on distribution test run by: > > > > cd trunk/ant > > ant -f nightly.xml run > > > >It should run end-to-end without any trouble, though there are > >occasionally intermittant failures during controls testing on Linux. > > > >Eddie > > > > > > > >On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>That's great, thanks -- hopefully there'll be agreement on this. FYI, > >>this passes tests in the tree (will be important to test against the > >>distributions though). > >> > >>Anyone else have comments about this? > >> > >>Rich > >> > >>Eddie O'Neil wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> I'd fix it too. :) It makes sense to have the generated > >>>struts-config files end up in WEB-INF/classes because they're really > >>>not meant to be read / write configuration files (like web.xml or > >>>beehive-netui-config.xml). > >>> > >>> Also, better to ship 1.0 without having to change the behavior later. > >>> > >>> Will take a look over the patch... > >>> > >>>Eddie > >>> > >>> > >>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>OK, I've added a patch for this in the bug. Feel free to give it a good > >>>>once-over. > >>>> > >>>>I'm running tests now -- looks OK so far. The only ill effect of this > >>>>change is one which would only get worse over time (the longer we wait > >>>>to do it): for *legacy* apps, where the root Struts-config file path is > >>>>specified in web.xml, we can no longer honor that path when we generate > >>>>the file. In these apps, you will get an error logged at Servlet > >>>>startup about Struts not being able to load the file (though everything > >>>>does work fine). > >>>> > >>>>Rich > >>>> > >>>>Rich Feit wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>>I just entered http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEEHIVE-915 : Page > >>>>>Flow annotation processors generate files in an IDE-unfriendly way. It > >>>>>turns out that the way we generate files when running under apt works > >>>>>fine on the command line, but makes it hard for an IDE (implementing the > >>>>>Mirror interfaces) to know when/where our generated files are created. > >>>>> > >>>>>This from the bug: > >>>>> > >>>>>"Unfortunately, [apt's] Filer offers only two choices of places to > >>>>>create files: the source directory and the build directory. This means > >>>>>that to fix this bug, our generated files need to move out of WEB-INF, > >>>>>into WEB-INF/classes, i.e., they will not only be generated into a > >>>>>different place, but they will be read through a different mechanism in > >>>>>the runtime." > >>>>> > >>>>>So, this is definitely not a trivial change. I am working on the fix > >>>>>for this, and I'd like to have the discussion about whether to get it > >>>>>into v1.0. If we don't, v1.0 won't be toolable in an IDE. > >>>>>Additionally, it could cause back-compat problems between this and the > >>>>>next version, if people begin to depend on our current location for > >>>>>generated files. On the other hand, it's a risky change in that we > >>>>>don't have a lot of time to have people hammer on this. The one saving > >>>>>grace is that the file location is so fundamental that presumably, any > >>>>>bug would cause blatantly bad behavior across the framework. > >>>>> > >>>>>Let me know what you think. > >>>>> > >>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>Rich > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > >
