Sounds great! Leaving netui-samples and netui-jsf seems like the right thing to hold off for 1.1.
Eddie O'Neil wrote: > Awesome. I'll make this change for netui-blank but will leave >netui-jsf and netui-samples for the sake of stability. We can fix >those for Beehive 1.1. > > This would switch the default NetUI project model to something that >looks like this: > > http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-5.0-doc/appdev/source.html > >which is basically: > > fooWebProject/ > web/ > src/ > build.xml > build.properties > >with a build that works like samples/petstoreWeb. > > Any other thoughts about doing this? > >Eddie > > >On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I definitely agree on #2 (if I'm understanding you correctly) -- I think >>it should support the Tomcat model you're describing. Originally I'd >>suggested supporting both because netui-blank is in the old project >>model, so I assumed that this is the only one we would be supporting. >>So I support making this change... >> >>Rich >> >>Eddie O'Neil wrote: >> >> >> >>>1) yes, this simply adds a convenience target to beehive-imports.xml. >>>It doesn't attempt to fix the validation problem discussed earlier -- >>>depending on how it's fixed, that might be an SVN-side issue with >>>building the distribution. >>> >>>2) I agree that we are moving away from the WEB-INF/src project model >>>and onto the Tomcat model where web/ and src/ are peers. This target >>>certainly could support both models, but it's just easier to have it >>>support the one Tomcat prescribes that is widely used and is easily >>>supported in various IDEs. We can document how to setup a project >>>with source-in-webapp. If there was enough interest, we could make >>>this change now...it only affects netui-samples, netui-blank, and >>>netui-jsf. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>>Eddie >>> >>> >>> >>>Rich Feit wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I see - so this isn't the complex part of the change we were talking >>>>about. This is simply adding an ant target to beehive-imports.xml. It >>>>seems like a good addition, but one question I have is whether we should >>>>be supporting different project models with something like this. Seems >>>>like we're moving away from a source-under-web-content model. What do >>>>you think? >>>>Rich >>>> >>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Here's the Ant that will do this; it patches >>>>>trunk/user/beehive-imports.xml and can be run as: >>>>> >>>>> $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp >>>>> >>>>>which will prompt for a destination directory for the project. Or, it >>>>>can be run like: >>>>> >>>>> $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp -Dwebapp.dir >>>>> >>>>>which will skp the prompt since "webapp.dir" has already been provided. >>>>> >>>>> I think this will be *really* useful and less error-prone than the >>>>>alternative. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>>Eddie >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> <target name="new.netui.webapp" description="Create >>>>>a new NetUI-enabled Beehive webapp"> >>>>> <input message="Provide a fully-qualified web project path:" >>>>> addproperty="webapp.dir"/> >>>>> >>>>> <copy todir="${webapp.dir}"> >>>>> <fileset dir="${basedir}/samples/netui-blank"> >>>>> <include name="**/*"/> >>>>> </fileset> >>>>> </copy> >>>>> <deploy-netui webappDir="${webapp.dir}"/> >>>>> <echo>Created a NetUI-enabled in ${webapp.dir}</echo> >>>>> </target> >>>>></snip> >>>>> >>>>>On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Gotcha. As far as the docs, I've got a placeholder in the >>>>>>netui/projects.xml doc already that describes the cp / ant -f step. >>>>>>So, that part is easy. ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Patch forthcoming... >>>>>> >>>>>>Eddie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Oh, I just meant we should take a week to have people play with it >>>>>>>if we >>>>>>>put it in for 1.0, that's all. I think we'd want to get it into the >>>>>>>docs, too, especially where there are instructions for copying >>>>>>>netui-blank, etc. What do you think about that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'd definitely take a look at the diff, though, even if it's >>>>>>>something >>>>>>>we hold until v1.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Rich >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yeah -- I don't think it would take a week (probably just a couple >>>>>>>>of hours), but it's a little different than how we do things >>>>>>>>right now >>>>>>>>because we need to support two scenarios: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>- create a new webapp >>>>>>>>- inject the runtime files (JARs / resources) into the samples >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We've got the latter and could easily add the former. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But, we'll get very little test mileage on it in the near term. I >>>>>>>>can take a crack at it and see what you think of the diff... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eddie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
