On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). >
I am -1 for making the Stanbol UI depending on LDpath. Simple because I do not see a good reason why one would need such an dependency. I also think that commons.ldpathtemplate should be removed as soon as we switch to a newer LDpath version for that the ldpathtemplate code is available as bundle in maven central. I plan to work on the upgrade to the newest LDpath version as soon as the first version with the org.apache.marmotta.ldpath packages is released. This was also the reason why I tried to remove all other functionality out of this bundle. Now with the new LdRenderer this will be no longer possible - but maybe thats ok as I do not see an other module where the LdRenderer fits well. Having an own commons/freemaker module is IMO a good ides, as it solves the issue that commons.web.core embeds and exports freemaker. It can also be handy if we want to seperate the WebUI from the RESTful services at a later point in time. best Rupert > 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 >> -- | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 | A-5500 Bischofshofen
