I changed the subject line here, just so this doesn't get lost among the discussion of netui-blank. Here's my take on these three questions:
1. I don't think maven-ized samples would be bundled with v1. Adam Jenkins is contributing the maven plugin (which is much-needed), but I think that a maven option wouldn't be worked into the distribution until v1.1 (or whatever the next point release is). That's just my guess. The reason for this can be found in my answer to #3. :) It does look like Eddie is working on getting our JARs out on the repository in time for v1: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-user/200509.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 2. I agree that the loss of momentum on Pollinate is disappointing, although I'm still really hopeful that something will appear under Eclipse eventually. I agree with Adam's statement that this is a missing piece which would really help carry Beehive forward (by making it more accessible and also digestible by management types). A discussion about collaboration with the Pollinate project is probably something we should have after v1 goes out. 3. v1. Yes, I would be shocked if we didn't release it this week. This project model issue is the only one we need to resolve, as far as I know, and so far everyone's been supportive of it. Rich Glauber Adriano Reis wrote: > I'm happy now, the layout makes its way smothly into NetBeans when you > import it as an > external web project. > I've got 3 questions: > 1 - would maven-ized samples be bundled with V1? If so, I read in the > mailing list > about the plugin(I was working on such a thing as well but stoped > since it had > been already developed) but I cannot find the plugin or anything > mentioning it in JIRA. > > 2 - Such a pity that Pollinate project is dead. What you guys think? > ...the latest > NeBeans version to be released (v5) will have struts support. I think > it would be cool > having some sort of minimal beehive support as well, I'd be very glad > working on it (since I probably > wont use WebLogic 9 eclipse plugins) but want you opinion. > > 3 - Is Beehive V1 due out this week? I'm pretty much anxious... :) > > > Glauber Adriano > > > > > Eddie O'Neil 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> > >
