+1 I think it best that we make this kind of changes now before we ship 1.0, this is a better model.
On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All-- > > I've got a patch ready which will reorganize the > <dist-root>/samples/netui-blank web project from a source-in model > like: > > fooWeb/ > Controller.java > index.jsp > WEB-INF/ > web.xml > src/ > build.xml > build.properties > Foo.java > > to a source-peer model like: > > fooWeb/ > build.xml > build.properties > src/ > Foo.java > web/ > index.jsp > Controller.java > WEB-INF/ > web.xml > > This brings the OOTB NetUI project model in-line with that prescribed > by Tomcat and used in many projects. It's also what Adriano suggested > and used for his NetBeans project. > > We're getting in the last days before 1.0 here, so we need to do two > things: > > 1) agree that this is the right thing to do > 2) review the patch in this bug -- > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEEHIVE-921 > > Please do both; if you disagree with (1), say so! :) > > Once / if we agree on this, I'll commit it and take a couple of hours > to rework some documentation. And, hopefully we can branch and ship > 1.0. :) > > Eddie > > > > On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
