> > So I think what this means is whether you rename or not most of the > specialpurpose documentation will be irrelevant anyway if we apply this > strategy.
Well yes and no. If I expect to find something under specialpurpose and it turns out to contain just a README file then I'll read that and understand where the contents are now. If I don't see specialpurpose, then there won't be anything strongly pointing me to go to plugins instead. I'm not against having a plug-in manager or a lightweight core. I'm just pointing out my concerns about the specific topic of renaming this folder, at this point in time when none of the loftier goals have been met. Regards Scott On 3 January 2017 at 18:57, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Scott and All, > > Recalling earlier discussions, one of the important reasons for creating > the plug-in manager is to remove non-core components (perhaps to a separate > repo) from OFBiz while having the ability to maintain them easily (i.e. the > build system takes care of downloading and incorporating into the code > base). > > So I think what this means is whether you rename or not most of the > specialpurpose documentation will be irrelevant anyway if we apply this > strategy. > > Of course the reason for this direction is to maintain a lightweight core. > If you just look at the "birt" and "solr" components for example you will > be see a massive amount of lib dependencies and some entanglements with > core. > > On Jan 2, 2017 11:42 PM, "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> > wrote: > > > Ok thanks, it just wasn't clear to me. > > > > My only concern with renaming it just for the sake of renaming it is that > > we have to make sure our documentation reflects the change and we have to > > be aware that anyone searching our email archives is going to be confused > > about constant references to a folder that doesn't exist. > > > > I'm a +0, I don't want to get in the way of change but at the same time > I'm > > not sure the benefits outweigh the potential confusion. > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > On 3 January 2017 at 09:11, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > I don't know, it depends on what people prefer. We can either delete > the > > > component-load.xml in /plugins and remove hot-deploy, or keep the > > > component-load.xml and hot-deploy. I lean slightly towards the former > but > > > no strong opinion. > > > > > > I think one thing at a time though. The focus now is to rename and > > prepare > > > a mechanism for handling plugins. Perhaps we can start aanother thread > to > > > discuss the next steps moving forward. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Taher Alkhateeb > > > > > > On Jan 2, 2017 11:02 PM, "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > What's the plan for the hot-deploy folder? Remove it? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > On 3 January 2017 at 08:26, gil portenseigne < > > > gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > Gil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 02/01/2017 17:45, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hello Everyone, > > > > >> > > > > >> In reference to earlier discussions and threads on the above > > subject, > > > I > > > > am > > > > >> hereby proposing renaming the directory "specialpurpose" to > > > "plugins". I > > > > >> have patch ready with all tests passing. > > > > >> > > > > >> Ref discussion: > > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9bb4fba6ec56bd52a5bc55e > > > > >> 44ba1672f088ec33eeb8a1af4d16fd6d2@%3Cdev.ofbiz.apache.org%3E > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > >> > > > > >> Taher Alkhateeb > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
