2010/2/1 Rex Wang <[email protected]> > > > 2010/2/1 David Jencks <[email protected]> > > >> On Jan 31, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Rex Wang wrote: >> >> Currently, I am trying to make some console portlets re-work. But >> firstly, I hope the following issues can be addressed: >> I found the "pluto-support" don't have a groupId as >> "org.apache.geronimo.configs", which likes the other plugins convention. >> Instead, it inherits the parent's groupId "org.apache.geronimo.plugins". I >> think that might be a typo, right? >> >> >> I think there have been suggestions to make the groupId of all the >> plugins, o.a.g.plugins. I'd like to do this eventually. I think >> pluto-support and a couple others are the only ones this happened to yet. >> > > So the result we will finally move all the plugin cars' groupId to > "o.a.g.plugins"? My impression on the convention is, for instance, in axis2: > axis2 > L axis2 > L geronimo-axis2 > L .. > because the parent & child have the same artifactId "axis2", so the groupId > must be different.. > Will you plan to change all the subprojects of axis2 to "o.a.g.plugins" no > matter they are modules or configs? > Or you meant move them to "o.a.g.plugins.modules" & "o.a.g.plugins.configs", if so, there will be a lot of changes..
> > >> Secondly, I plan to move the dojo-war into console-ear instead being an >> individual plugin. Since we has modified the navigation tree to base on >> dojo, it should be a basic war, not a plugable component, for web console. >> >> >> The original thinking was that dojo would be useful to other projects, so >> we should make it available separately from the web console. >> > OK. > > >> Also, I hope to merge the plugin portlets into console-base-portlets. >> Because the plugin is a core feature to geronimo, I am not comfortable to >> separate it from the base portlests and also make 3 more sub-project folders >> under console. >> >> >> I'd prefer to keep it separate. IIRC if you don't install the plugin >> console plugin, you can't install any new apps or plugins into the geronimo >> server. IMO being able to have a console without this capability is >> important. >> > I see what's you concern. If the deployment is so important, maybe the > undeployment functions should be separated from the current portlets too? > > thanks > -Rex > > >> >> The changes should be easy and relatively independent so that it won't >> disturb the works on the other plugins. Any comments? >> >> >> Sorry to be negative, but I'd prefer to avoid all these changes. If you >> think they are important, please explain why in more detail. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> >> Thanks >> >> -- >> Lei Wang (Rex) >> rwonly AT apache.org >> >> >> > > > -- > Lei Wang (Rex) > rwonly AT apache.org > -- Lei Wang (Rex) rwonly AT apache.org
