Definitely, this would be a great thing to have. I have a local script that does exactly this -- in retrospect, this should have made me think of an ant target. I think it's something that we should do for 1.1, unless we want to delay the release for a week or so...
Rich Eddie O'Neil wrote: > It's complicated. :) > > We really need a target that can "seed" a Beehive webapp including >all of the validation config files, runtime JARs, and NetUI URL >addressable resources. Today, this is done using a command like: > > cp -rf samples/netui-blank <project-dir> > ant -f ant/beehive-runtime.xml deploy.beehive.webapp.runtime >-Dwebapp.dir=<project-dir> > >If, for example, you just do the latter, you'll end up with a webapp >that has the runtime but no web.xml or validation config files. And, >that's kind of bad... > > Would be *very* nice to have a target that just does: > >ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.beehive.webapp -Dproject.dir=... > >It could even prompt for the project.dir -- kind of like a new project >wizard in Ant. > > We could do this for 1.0, but it's not an insignificant change. >It's *definitely* something we need for 1.1... > >Eddie > > > > > >On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Yeah, if it's complicated at all, I agree. >> >>Daryl Olander wrote: >> >> >> >>>+1 to doing the real fix post 1.0 >>> >>>On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>I take it back...this isn't a straightforward thing to fix >>>>unfortunately because it affects the Ant used to provide the runtime >>>>in both the distribution and SVN builds. >>>> >>>>It wouldn't be hard to change it, but if we're going to do that, we >>>>should add the beehive-netui-validator-config.xml file (and consider >>>>adding web.xml) to those as well... >>>> >>>>I agree (now) having them checked in is the right thing unless we >>>>want to tackle the bigger problem of copying all of the config files. >>>>And, I'd rather ship 1.0 and fix that later. :) >>>> >>>>Eddie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>OK, I certainly don't have an objection to that... thanks. >>>>>Rich >>>>> >>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Right, it doesn't *have* to happen now, but doing it now ensures >>>>>>that we're consistent. So, I'm going to go ahead and fix while you're >>>>>>getting the compiler change in. >>>>>> >>>>>>:) >>>>>> >>>>>>Eddie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Rich Feit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I haven't started it -- it doesn't seem like anything that has to go >>>>>>>into v1, right? Just checking. I did update the checked-in files to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>be >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>of the right version -- this is just the longer-term fix to ensure >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>that >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>this doesn't happen again... :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Rich >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Rich-- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Have you started fixing BEEHIVE-914 yet? If not, let me know and >>>>>>>>I'll take that one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eddie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> > > >
