Thanks Rob, this makes sense. And I agree. -Jeroen
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Robert Matthews <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Jeroen > > Having continued reading I think I'm saying the same kind of thing as Dan. > But an example should help. > > At the moment we have listed the component like the SQL OS, Scimpi viewer > and Wicket viewer as a set of components, so specifically the Scimpi viewer > is down as o.a.i.viewer:scimpi, o.a.i.viewer:scimpi-servlet and > o.a.i.viewer:scimpi-**dispacther. Those submodules are just part of the > Scimpi viewer and not themselves components. So the list of relevant > components (as far as the outside world is concerned) would be be like this: > > isis-viewer-restful > isis-viewer-scimpi > isis-viewer-wicket > isis-viewer-html > > instead of this: > > isis-viewer-restful > isis-viewer-restful-applib > isis-viewer-restful-viewer > isis-viewer-restful-tck > isis-viewer-scimpi > isis-viewer-scimpi-servlet > isis-viewer-scimpi-dispatcher > isis-viewer-wicket > isis-viewer-wicket-model > isis-viewer-wicket-ui > isis-viewer-wicket-viewer > isis-viewer-wicket-tck > isis-viewer-html > > Hence a component is portrayed as single entity even though internally it > may be complicated and made up of many things. > > Another way of putting it, is that the list we are discussing is more > complicated than it needs to be because many of modules are effectively not > important from main view. > > I hope that helps. > > Rob > > > > > On 12/02/12 18:51, Jeroen van der Wal wrote: > >> Hi Rob >> >> Sorry but I don't get what you're trying to tell. Perhaps you could >> elaborate or give a sample? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeroen >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert Matthews >> <[email protected]>**wrote: >> >> I think the multiple modules aspect is what is adding confusion. What our >>> list needs to show is what top level parts there are. So there is the >>> core >>> and a number of components that work with the core. Now as far as the >>> components are concerned whether they simply consist of the module that >>> is >>> named or a number of modules is concerned is immaterial. What is >>> important >>> is that each component is known by one name; any submodules are not >>> relevant and are to be seen only within the module. The core follows >>> this >>> idea to a lesser degree I think. >>> >>> This means that the list being discussed probably should be shorter, and >>> the sub modules left out. >>> >>> Does this make sense? >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/01/12 15:36, Dan Haywood wrote: >>> >>> On 1 December 2012 14:23, Minto van der Sluis <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hmm, I get confused by the artifactIds. I see both for formats >>>> >>>>> (isis-viewer-bdd and isis-wicket-viewer). >>>>> >>>>> ah, that was a typo. the intention for artifactIds was: >>>> isis-xxx-viewer, >>>> isis-yyy-objectstore etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> I also see artifactIds with 4 >>>> >>>>> sections, for instance: isis-jdo-objectstore-****metamodel. This >>>>> confuses >>>>> >>>>> me. Is it an objectstore or a metamodel? >>>>> >>>>> ok, well... some modules (in fact, most) have more than one component. >>>> And >>>> I don't think we should insist that all modules have only one component. >>>> >>>> In this particular example, isis-jdo-objectstore-metamodel would be the >>>> additional facet factories that are added to the metamodel that >>>> interpret >>>> JDO-specific annotations. That is to distinguish from, say, >>>> isis-jdo-objectstore-****datanucleus, which is the stuff that calls the >>>> >>>> DataNucleus' specific stuff. >>>> >>>> But there is similar layering in isis-scimpi-viewer, >>>> isis-restfulobjects-viewer, isis-wicket-viewer, isis-sql-objectstore. >>>> >>>> >>>> (isis-metamodel-jdo) Also is >>>> >>>> there really a difference between model and metamodel? >>>>> (isis-jdo-objectstore-****metamodel vs isis-wicket-viewer-model). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes... there is (though even if there weren't, I'm not sure it >>>>> matters >>>>> >>>> too >>>> much ... I'd rather give the authors of individual components/modules >>>> some >>>> latitude in how they name the individual submodules. For example, >>>> scimpi >>>> has isis-scimpi-dispatcher and isis-scimpi-servlet. Anyone who wants to >>>> get involved in enhancing scimpi would grok these particular names and >>>> why >>>> they were chosen easily enough) >>>> >>>> To answer your question, though... jdo's metamodel submodule is as >>>> described above, its contributions to the Isis metamodel, whereas >>>> wicket's >>>> model is Isis' implementation of Wicket's IModel interface. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> By the way my preference here is isis-objectstore-jdo. For the same >>>> >>>>> reason as for the proposed location (easy component grouping when >>>>> viewing directory). In my own projects I usually have my directory >>>>> location match my artifactIds. >>>>> >>>>> ok, so we now we have a couple of distinct and different >>>>> preferences in >>>>> >>>> the community. >>>> >>>> Anyone else have an explicit preferences: >>>> a) for the artifactId: isis-jdo-objectstore vs isis-objectstore-jdo >>>> b) for whether artifactId = directory name >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, isis-scimpi-viewer needs some more attention. >>>> >>>>> the artifactIds weren't correct ... now fixed >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please check out the updated version of that wiki page [1] and let me >>>> >>>>> know >>>>> >>>>> your thoughts. It's important that we get this right (I don't want to >>>>>> >>>>>> have >>>>> >>>>> to do it all over in 3 months time!!!) >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/ISIS/Make+****<https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/ISIS/Make+**> >>>>>> >>>>> releases+easier+and+more+****frequent<https://cwiki.apache.** >>>>> org/confluence/display/ISIS/**Make+releases+easier+and+more+**frequent<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ISIS/Make+releases+easier+and+more+frequent> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >
