I'd thought about the plugin idea for managing the build, as I've a maven script thats pretty much ready to be ported out into a plugin.
Reinhard what's your view on this as you seem to have a different vision? How possible is it to have installable blocks? For example I've had a few problems using a forms block built with 2.1.7-dev, with 2.1.6. Looking at it there doesn't seem to be a huge reason why the blocks couldn't be installable, i guess compatability testing against release versions would be needed. But I cant get passed thinking that its all supposed to be java. I might not know what I'm talking about but I don't see the comparision between httpd server and a framework as the same thing. The users are different as well as the technologies. Folks developing java webapps, expect to have jar files they need to stick in WEB-INF/lib deploy to a container such as tomcat and run the thing. When I'm doing sys admin stuff i like using vi, running configure scripts and makefiles. But i wouldn't code java using vi. I've been going through the svn logs. Are there's any posts in the archieves where I can brush up on what the road map is? Mark On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:30:18 +0100, Giacomo Pati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mark Lowe wrote: > >>What are the exact reasons you don't like a source > >>distribution? > > > > > > If I were working on my own then there's not a huge problem, but this > > isn't the case. There are several agencies involved and the usual > > political difficulties when changing things like build files and > > versions. Someone walking into this to do a request fix. but has no > > previous knowledge of the application gets bogged down, having to > > understand that cocoon needs building, the build scripts have grown in > > complication to the point of being unmaintainable. > > > > Being able to have a cocoon based project, define the dependencies in > > the project.xml (or even an ant build file) build your source code and > > webapp resources into a war, would be a huge step in the right > > direction. Its the little things that count.Someone on the original > > thread mentioned the classic ./configure;make with > > ./build.sh;:/cocoon.sh , isn't that the point? > > Cocoon has grown beyond the 'it's a framework' status IMHO. It is an > infratructure similar to the Apache HTTPD where you need a well defined > deployment strategy/facility. If you take it as that even Maven users > will find their way through it as we do for nearly two years now with > success (from customers as well as from our developers POV). > > One problem is that there isn't one golden way doing project/webapps > with Cocoon. I'm sure if we start a "write down how you do project > management/development with Cocoon in a wiki page" contest we suddenly > will have dozends of ways to do it as most of us have developed their > own way of doing it as the needs are different from group to group. Most > of the people here use Ant others use Maven. Just this allows for > different variations on doing it. > > We use a "home grown" Maven plugin developed with the help and visions > of other people here that allows us to have short development cycles > (just save your changes and reload your browser), the ability to build a > Cocoon suited to the needs for the app in development by just executing > a Maven goal, and a way to create a deployment infrastructure project > where our Cocoon apps can be deployed into a well built Cocoon by just > executing Maven. The war deployment way has never worked for us as we > don't have (and don't want) the single app for one Cocoonn instance > similar as we don't do a sigle webapp for a single HTTPD instance. > > If once the "real blocks" a reality things might change again but until > than we are quite happy with it. > > Giacomo > > > Mark > > > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:34:05 +0100, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>>and without requiring to compile the > >>>>>framework itself. > >>>> > >>>>We know this - we are working on getting rid of the compilation step with > >>>>2.2 again. > >>> > >>> > >>>I'll shutup then. > >> > >>Just wondering... > >> > >>Which part of calling "./build.sh" is the big problem again? :-P > >> > >>..but seriously - from a user's point of view: > >>What are the exact reasons you don't like a source > >>distribution? > >> > >>cheers > >>-- > >>Torsten > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Otego AG Tel: +41 (0)1 240 00 55 > Giacomo Pati, CTO Mobile:+41 (0)79 262 21 04 > Apache Software Foundation Member Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hohlstrasse 216 Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > CH-8004 Zuerich http://www.otego.com > > >
