On 30 December 2012 17:05, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, December 30, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > > > On 30 December 2012 14:47, Matt Franklin <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 29, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > > > > > > > >> As example of how to customise a Rave project we have the > > > >> rave-vanilla-extension in the sandbox. This project is not always up > > to > > > >> date and if you export it from svn as starting point, you get > > > >> org.apache.rave as groupid and package prefix. I generated a Maven > > > >> Archetype [1] that creates a similar structure but with your own > > > groupid, > > > >> artifactid and package name. > > > >> You can try it out by checking out the archetype from [2], build the > > > >> archetype and then > > > >> mvn archetype:generate -DarchetypeCatalog=local > > > >> > > > >> This is still not an ideal situation. The archetype can be just as > > > outdated > > > >> as the current vanilla extension and now you also need to build the > > > >> archetype to create a new custom project. It would be better if it > > > became a > > > >> module inside the main project and during build it should generate a > > > custom > > > >> project from the archetype. Then it will also be a part of the > release > > > and > > > >> the archetype becomes available without checking it out. > > > >> Is this possible and do we want the archetype in its current form > > inside > > > >> the main project? > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 this is a great idea and a great improvement. > > > > > > Agreed. I am not very knowledgeable about archetypes in maven, but > > > definitely seems like the right way to go > > > > > > > Just committed the generation of a project during the build of the > > archetype. > > Next step would be the integration into the main project. The "vanilla > > extension" contains a project structure with a custom portal and Shindig. > > The portal has no LDAP integration and has a custom user service. The > > custom Shindig is nothing but an example how to overlay the rave-shindig > > war. Shall we keep this for the archetype and change the behaviour if > this > > turns out to be unhandy? > > > > My personal preference would be to have an archetype that generates a > basic structure with no additional code since most people will start > there. We could have an option to create a new service but it shouldn't be > default. It would also be nice if the archetype was setup to allow people > to easily skin Rave. >
I forgot to mention that skinning the portal has always been a part of the "vanilla extension" and now also a part of the archetype. You can try the archetype now by building Rave and then generate a custom project using cd /tmp mvn archetype:generate -DarchetypeGroupId=org.apache.rave -DarchetypeArtifactId=rave-custom-project-archetype (I will document this later) Jasha > Chris > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Jasha > > > >> > > > >> [1] > > > >> > > > > > > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-archetypes.html > > > >> [2] > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/sandbox/rave-extensions/rave-archetype/ > > > >> > > > > > >
