Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
[...]
<module xmlns="http://apache.org/lenya/module/1.0";>
<id>org.apache.lenya.modules.jackrabbit</id>
<depends module="org.apache.lenya.modules.repository"/>
<depends module="org.apache.lenya.modules.jcr"/>
<package>org.apache.lenya.modules</package>
<version>0.1-dev</version>
<name>Jackrabbit Repository Module</name>
<lenya-version>@lenya.version@</lenya-version>
<description>Jackrabbit JCR Implementation (see
org.apache.lenya.modules.jcr Module)</description>
</module>
Versions are not considered yet by the build process, this might be
added in the future.
nice. we need a way to handle name clashes though. how about prefixing
modules with either "core-", "optional-" or "custom-", where custom is
always site-specific?
We could add this to the module ID:
<id>org.apache.lenya.modules.core.workflow-api</id>
ah, of course it belongs there. i had mistakenly thought that this was a
java classpath. (reading email too fast.)
core modules would be maintained and thoroughly tested all the time by
every lenya developer (i.e. must not be broken at any time, unless major
refactoring is under way, and then they must be fixed asap), optional
modules included in the tree but maintained by single people and thus
may be broken sometimes or remain in a proof-of-concept stage for a
while, and custom modules are out-of-tree modules created by users for
their own deployments.
A general question:
Can we enforce such guidelines in our community?
If yes, should we add this to the project guidelines?
i would appreciate that.
--
"Open source takes the bullshit out of software."
- Charles Ferguson on TechnologyReview.com
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier, EDV-Administrator
Institut für Politikwissenschaft
Universität Duisburg-Essen, Standort Duisburg
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telefon: 0203/379-2736
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
