David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Diwaker Gupta wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Added two new plugins for
refactoring views into the core:
- structurer
- themes
Recent changes to views with using jxtg as core component
made the old view plugins unusable (FOR-675)
which can not longer stay like this.
I recommend to rollback:
- org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view
- org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml
to revision -r280939 and then commit them back as views head.
Why can't we just roll back trunk to a stable version, and move the
views/xhtml2 work to a new branch? I think thats much neater, and easier
both on devs and users alike. People can hack away on the views/xhtml2
branch without having to worry about breaking trunk for someone.
+1
In fact this is exactly what we agreed in the IRC session:
Sep 19 11:17:31 <tscherler> - we should get the xhtml2 and view internal
together
Sep 19 11:18:03 <tscherler> - xhtml2 should be merged into the internal
views stuff, simply replace the docuemnt2html part
Sep 19 11:18:42 <tscherler> - x2 plugin should provide xdocs2x2
convertion
Sep 19 11:19:17 <tscherler> - views should work with x2 input
Sep 19 11:21:15 <tscherler> - we need to write a x2 to xhtml plugin
Sep 19 11:21:52 <tscherler> that should be basically a bunch of contracts
Sep 19 11:22:19 <tscherler> roadmap:
Sep 19 11:22:31 <tscherler> 1) create new branch
Sep 19 11:22:48 <tscherler> 2) move view stuff and x2 stuff into core
Sep 19 11:23:10 <tscherler> 3) resolving by both only allowed through lm
Sep 19 11:23:37 <tscherler> 4) create xdocs2x2 plugin
Sep 19 11:24:10 <tscherler> 5) create x2 to xhtml plugin
Sep 19 11:24:41 <tscherler> in this branch all skins are removed
Sep 19 11:24:52 <tscherler> only view is supported
Sep 19 11:25:19 <tscherler> skin pipes are to be refactored to output
xhtml2
Hold on. That IRC discussion was extremely rushed at the end.
We did not make any decisions there. Someone was going to make
a proposal. Are you sure that a branch is the way to do this?
Yes, you are right. Lets start discussing the proposal in the open.
Branches tend to become islands of lone development, and when
they go on for too long, become hard to merge.
This work will touch pretty much *all* of Forrest. It will introduce:
- XHTML2 - rewrite of core processing pipelines
- Views - rewrite of core processing pipelines
- Locationmap - rewrite of core processing pipelines
So...
How will this branch be merged? I see some confusing quick
comments in that IRC log, but no resolution.
We didn't foresee merging this branch, rather replacing the current trunk:
Sep 19 11:32:23 <tscherler> that and is needed for an internal skin plugin
Sep 19 11:32:29 <rgardler> David: after we merge this beast? -> I do not
see us merging this branch, I see this as a compelte rewrite
Sep 19 11:32:40 <rgardler> all the stripped out stuff goes in plugins
Sep 19 11:32:54 <tscherler> +1
Sep 19 11:32:55 <rgardler> we are lef with a really clean core that does
nothing but the structurer part
Sep 19 11:33:30 <crossley> radical. So we cease development on trunk?
Sep 19 11:33:33 <rgardler> If you know Eclipse you'll understand the
beuaty of this
Sep 19 11:34:02 <rgardler> if not, think of Jedit - similar concept,
Sep 19 11:34:12 <rgardler> JEdit does nothing but provide a text editor
and a plugin frameowrk
Sep 19 11:34:33 <tscherler> (02:33:47) crossley: radical. So we cease
development on trunk?-> basically it should become a stable branch
Sep 19 11:34:47 <tscherler> like cocoon-2.1.x
Sep 19 11:34:51 <rgardler> Yes, make a 0.8 release and only do bug fixes
Sep 19 11:35:49 <tscherler> that would not meet "usable trunk " approach
but we can have 0.8 branch for that
Sep 19 11:35:58 <tscherler> better 0.8.x
Sep 19 11:36:27 <rgardler> I think we are in the mechanics now, that is
easy to do onlist
And so here we are onlist ;-)
The thing that really frightens me is the comment
"in this branch all skins are removed". Perhaps that is
what is needed, but we must decide and not just an offhand
comment in an IRC log.
Yes, you raised this issue onIRC too:
Sep 19 11:28:57 <crossley> So the old "skins" still continue to function?
Sep 19 11:29:11 <crossley> after we merge this beast?
Sep 19 11:29:17 <tscherler> no
Sep 19 11:29:26 <rgardler> We can make an internal plugin that provides
backward compatability
Sep 19 11:29:33 <tscherler> yes
Sep 19 11:29:39 <rgardler> I think we need to do that otherwise users
will not upgrade
Sep 19 11:29:51 <tscherler> +1
Sep 19 11:30:00 <crossley> rgardler: good but is that possible
Sep 19 11:30:08 <tscherler> yes it isd
Sep 19 11:30:22 <rgardler> Yes, at worst we simply take trunk and make
it a plugin ;-)
Sep 19 11:30:31 <tscherler> +1
In other words, core will *not* have skin functionality. It will only be
available in a (deprecated?) plugin.
What was wrong with Thorsten's proposal to cease work
on the old plugins and create new plugins?
This is a complete rewrite of Forrest. Doing it in a plugin will
encorage us to reuse existing monolothic code in core.
If we had a 1.0 release already I would be proposing a 2.0 development.
But we don't have one so this is a 1.0 development.
It could be the other way around. 0.8 becomes the branch and we do this
work in trunk. But I believe we need to have a "spring clean" (it must
be spring for one of our developers)
Ross
