Hi, I did some re-refactoring yesterday to me there's one open point with STANBOL-910 which I described in the latest comment. If I don't get any feedback I'll go for the suggested approach of merging the two viewable-writer modules but I can live perfectly well we the other described approach (separate rdfviewable-writer module).
Cheers, Reto On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Fabian Christ <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi, > > I agree that we should avoid to work on many things in parallel. Try > to implement and commit things step by step. Otherwise things are hard > to follow and not easy to revert if discussion come up. > > To the situation at hand: I can not say anything on the technical > level to the concrete problem. Are you now in the position Reto to > work around the refactoring and make the usermanager work again for > you? Once it runs again - we should find a consensus how things should > be changed. > > Best, > - Fabian > > 2013/2/13 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Rupert Westenthaler > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Please just restore the original LdRenderer service an the > >>> corresponding version of the UserManager. We can add an > >>> RdfViewablRenderer service later, I think its overarchitecture to > >>> separate out the LDVieable implementation. But first things first: > >>> restore the better status quo ante with the Ldrenderer. > >> > >> LDRenderer was in ldpathtemplate; I created a new module, added those > >> to bundlelists (both in trunk and a branch); changed exports and > >> import statements that are now conflicting with an lot of additional > >> changes I made while working on STANBOL-924 and STANBOL-927. Sorry I > >> think reverting is no longer an option as it would take longer as > >> implementing the service as suggested above. > > > > I think we should avoid working on an issue while dependent issues > > aren't resolved. > > > > Also removing the LDRenderer service was not something which was clear > > that this would happen neither from the description of the issue nor > > from the discussion on the list. > > > > As you refuse to do it, I'll read the LdRenderer service (using your > > new TemplateLoader service) so that UserManager can be reverted to > > where the code was both more elegant and working. > > > > Reto > >> > >> best > >> Rupert > >> > >> -- > >> | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] > >> | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > >> | A-5500 Bischofshofen > > > > -- > Fabian > http://twitter.com/fctwitt >
