ok so:

1. doxia-book from Doxia to Doxia Sitetools,
  same artifact coordinates: org.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-book,
   1.2 is from Doxia tree, 1.3-SNAPSHOT will be from Doxia Sitetools

2. doxia-maven-plugin from Doxia to Doxia Tools,
  same artifact coordinates: org.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-maven-plugin
  1.2 is from Doxia tree, 1.3-SNAPSHOT will be from Doxia Tools

3. maven-doxia-tools from Maven Shared to Doxia Sitetools,
  changing artifact coordinates from org.apache.maven.shared:maven-doxia-tools 
to org.apache.maven.doxia:maven-doxia-tools
Notice: the actual name in pom [1] is "Maven Doxia Integration Tools", 
changing the artifactId to maven-doxia-integration-tools would be more 
complete but IMHO somewhat verbose


doxia-test-docs is another story I still don't fully understand, it stays for 
the moment in Doxia: we can have another look at it after previous changes

Regards,

Hervé


[1] http://maven.apache.org/shared/maven-doxia-tools/project-summary.html

Le vendredi 30 mars 2012 10:07:16 Lukas Theussl a écrit :
> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On 2012-03-29 09:13, Lukas Theussl wrote:
> >> I agree that they don't belong into core, but I rather thought of
> >> moving
> >> them into doxia-tools instead. Not sure what is better.
> > 
> > This was my thought also.
> > 
> >> OTOH, neither book nor maven-plugin have been maintained (AFAIK) since
> >> they were moved out of the sandbox, and IMO they don't work too well.
> >> In
> >> particular there are problems reported with Maven 3 (DOXIA-438) which
> >> I
> >> haven't tested, but I wanted to suggest a long time ago to deprecate
> >> and
> >> ultimately remove them.
> > 
> > If agree that they should be moved, let's start with that. If the target
> > is doxia-tools then let's move them there, prior to the 1.3 release of
> > Doxia and Doxia Sitetools.
> > 
> > My feeling about Doxia Tools is that their sub projects shouldn't be
> > released all at the same time. They are individual projects and should
> > have their own release cycles, much like our shared components or
> > plugins.
> I agree for doxia-tools. Doxia and doxia-sitetools are closer coupled
> though, I think they should be released together. Maybe the
> doxia-maven-plugin should go into sitetools, and the book into tools?
> 
> > Also I'd like to move maven-doxia-tools from shared over to Doxia. Given
> > its description
> > "Assists in using Doxia for site generation and report creation."
> 
> Don't know where you got that from, the current pom [1] says "A
> collection of tools to help the integration of Doxia in Maven plugins."
> I think we also talked about renaming it to 'doxia-integration-tools'
> which sounds more descriptive.
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/shared/trunk/maven-doxia-tools/pom.xml?re
> vision=1214494&view=markup
> > I think that Sitetools would be a good home for it.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.
> 
> >> Also the doxia-test-docs should move somewhere else.
> > 
> > What are those? They look like they could be the basis of an IT suite.
> > Perhaps it should be a completely separate project under the Doxia
> > umbrella?
> It's not a project actually, just a collection of test resources. They
> were originally added to check the correctness of the XSDs, see this
> mail thread:
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-doxia-dev/200812.mbox/%3C493D
> 50DF.3040705%40udo.edu%3E
> 
> It's currently used by xdoc and fml modules, however, I'm not sure of
> the usefulness, see eg my comment in
> XdocValidatorTest#testValidateFiles. IMO the validation test would be
> useful if it tested either a new xsd against the old test files, or some
> new test files (created by a new doxia module) against the existing xsd.
> But currently the test takes the old test files (from test-docs) and
> validates it with the established xsds (fml-1.0-1, xdoc-2.2), so I don't
> see the point.
> 
> 
> Just some thoughts, unfortunately I don't have time right now to help
> with any 'real' work...
> 
> -Lukas
> 
> >> -Lukas
> >> 
> >> Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> >>> while working on the relations between components, I finally found
> >>> why
> >>> there
> >>> was something I didn't understand for a long time about Doxia suite
> >>> structure:
> >>> Doxia base contains book support through a plugin, but Doxia base
> >>> doesn't contain documents support -- it's Doxia Sitetools.
> >>> 
> >>> So we have a circular dependency:
> >>> doxia-maven-plugin (from Doxia base) ->   maven-doxia-tools ->
> >>> Doxia-decoration-
> >>> model (from Doxia SiteTools) ->   Doxia base (xhtml, fo and itext)
> >>> 
> >>> IMHO, doxia-book and doxia-maven-plugin should move to Doxia
> >>> Sitetools
> >>> [1].
> >>> 
> >>> This won't change the artifacts coordinate, so won't change anything
> >>> for users.
> >>> But this should help when explaining Doxia suite structure, which
> >>> has
> >>> been
> >>> difficult for a long time, and having a consequence on versioning
> >>> decision:
> >>> should we keep base and Sitetools version at the same level or not?
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Any objection? Did I miss something?
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> 
> >>> Hervé
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/doxia/doxia-sitetools/index.html
> >>> 
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> 
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to