On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Rupert Westenthaler < [email protected]> wrote:
> p.s maybe we should contribute the Clerezza LDpath integration to > Clerezza instead of managing those modules in Stanbol. This would > affect the modules > > * commons.ldpath.clerezza > * commons.ldpathtemplate > > WDYT > These modules depend on freemarker which is not present in clerezza. I'd suggest to see how things consolidate and how we manage to move to RDF/Rest and get rid of the old tightly coupüled presentation layer before moving around stuff. Reto > Rupert > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Rupert Westenthaler > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > -- > | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] > | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > | A-5500 Bischofshofen >
