Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi,
I agree that it would be good to separate Planet from roller so they can
be released independently etc.
One thing to consider is to make both Planet and roller sub-projects
explicitly, as in
svn copy <rollersvn>/trunk/apps/planet <rollersvn>/planet/trunk
svn move <rollersvn>/trunk <rollersvn>/core/trunk
Whatever you call roller core, it might be cleaner. No strong opinion,
just other projects seem to have this structure...
yeah, I like that idea too. the name we've been using is 'weblogger',
which identifies the blog server part of the project.
i also like the idea of allowing people to commit plugins to the
repository, which he haven't done so far. we tried using java.net for a
plugin repository but i think that's been a failed experiment and it
would be far more ideal to let people maintain their plugins in apache
svn. i think that's easier for everyone and would help boost
participation in the project.
i think we still want to keep the plugin development separate from the
core codebase of the application though, so maybe a structure like this?
<rollersvn>/weblogger/core/trunk (blog server main codebase)
<rollersvn>/weblogger/plugins/* (where users contribute plugins)
<rollersvn>/planet/core/trunk (aggregation server main codebase)
-- Allen
Craig
On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
Personally, I think that would help to clarify the separation of the
projects. It would be nice to see 'weblogger' get rearranged a bit at the
same.
-Nathan
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Allen Gilliland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I mentioned this to Dave a while back, but I have made a fairly
significant
number of improvements to the Roller Planet code to work it into a
standalone application which we use on planets.sun.com.
I am happy to commit those changes back to the Roller SVN repository but
the changes I've made are not really compatible with the way Roller
manages
the Planet project right now, so it would be a major PITA to revert
things.
Instead I'd like to propose that the Roller Planet code be moved in
the SVN
repository so that it effectively stands as its own project. It
would still
be a part of Roller, just instead of treating Roller like 1 project with
multiple modules it would actually be treated like multiple projects.
The svn command would basically be ...
svn copy <rollersvn>/trunk/apps/planet <rollersvn>/planet/trunk
... this makes "planet" a project within Roller and it would have its
own
trunk/branches/tags which allow it to be worked on completely
independently
of the Roller Weblogger code.
The actual code changes I have to offer are numerous, but include ..
* cleanup and bug fixes to tighten up JPA backend.
* merging of static & runtime configs into a single class.
* config class is no longer static which promotes more DI.
* some class renaming to fix a naming clash problem.
* improvements to bootstrapping process to promote more DI.
* elimination of lots of unused code.
* cleanup of exception throwing/handling.
* lots more unit tests, including unit tests for most struts2 actions.
* simplification and streamlining for UI.
Anyone interested in this? thoughts? comments?
-- Allen
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
