Very cool. I, too, hope to turn the dddsample project into a step-by-step tutorial.
Adam On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Minto van der Sluis <mi...@xup.nl> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > You're not the only one who wants this. :-) > > I have done some work on creating a tutorial [1]. I am just at the > start. Is also contains a simplified archetype. > > Regards, > > Minto > > > > [1] https://github.com/misl/Bragger > > Op 6-2-2013 21:30, Adam Howard schreef: > > Replied inline. TL;DR I'm happy with the current state of the wrj > > archetype. I think what is needed is documentation of how to go about > > adding new components as you're working on your own project (adding a > > different objectstore, adding junit viewer, etc.) And since I want it I > > guess it falls on me to write it up :) > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Dan Haywood < > d...@haywood-associates.co.uk>wrote: > > > >> Hi Adam, > >> I have no problem with us also supporting such a blank archetype. > >> > >> Previously our archetypes was based on the claims example app, which > was 3 > >> domain entities rather than just the one in the current wrj archetype... > >> the reason being to make it quickly easy to get something going. My > >> expectation is that people would rename the ToDo class to Customer, or > >> whatever. But if you're finding it tiresome to strip out what is in > ToDo, > >> then perhaps others do too? > >> > > I guess that makes sense and there really are just a handful of files > that > > need to be edited or deleted: > > - TodoItem.java > > - TodoItems.java > > - TodoItemsFixture.java > > - TodoItemsFixtureService.java > > - TodoItemsJdo.java > > - welcome.html > > > > And now that you mention it I have referred back to the annotations and > > patterns used in those files when writing my own classes so maybe it's a > > good thing. One question: can the pom <name> field be set during > archetype > > creation? Right now I enter my choice for group and artifact ids but the > > name is always "Quickstart Wicket/Restful/JDO App". > > > > With respect to using inmemory vs JDO, there's no need to write > >> JDO-specific implementations of the repositories; a naive impl also > works, > >> even if the JDO objectstore is configured. Perhaps this isn't easy to > grok > >> from the documentation. Given that we configure the JDO objectstore to > run > >> with the inmemory HSQLDB, my thoughts are that it's pretty low ceremony > >> already > >> > > So I turned jdo support back on and immediately had to add > > PersistenceCapable annotations to my classes (both entities and value > > objects) and select an IdentityType and then my Fixture that creates a > few > > sample objects failed to run. I switched back to the in-memory store at > > that point. It's not a lot of work to add the in-memory dependency so > this > > is something I can easily do on my projects. > > > > With respect to viewers, another option for a "prototyping" sort of > >> archetype is also dnd viewer. Although we've now (since removing the > >> client/server remoting component) pretty much deprecated this for > >> production use, the dnd viewer has proven its worth over past years as a > >> good modelling tool. If you look under examples/applications, you can > see > >> that there's the outline of such an application already there (though > not > >> tested recently). I also thought that this might incorporate the BDD > and > >> junit viewers (not that I've formally released those as TLP releases, > yet). > >> > > This is where things get tricky for a "default" new project archetype. My > > preference for default viewer will be different from others default. And > > the nature of the project can also come into play. For the project I'm > > working on, I want to deploy to Heroku for demo purposes with minimal > > overhead so for me that's Wicket + In-memory. Rob might want to default > to > > Scimpi. Jeroen might just want RO for a specific project. I don't know if > > maven allows on-the-fly creation of archetypes at that fine-grained > level. > > > > After talking through all of this I guess what we have now in the wrj > > archetype is the right place to start a new project in that it includes > the > > most active components. > > > > > >> I'm cc'ing this reply to users mailing list to see if there are any > >> opinions from folks only on that list. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Dan > > > > -- > > Adam > > > > > -- > ir. ing. Minto van der Sluis > Software innovator / renovator > Xup BV > > Mobiel: +31 (0) 626 014541 > >
