On 6/15/05, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm with Martin and Niall.
Having looked at this some more, I agree as well, and I'm willing to
do the work. The proposed plan is to:
* "svn mv" the current contents of "sandbox/tiles" to someplace archival
until the remaining steps are complete.
* "svn copy" to establish the initial code base for "sandbox/tiles" from the
trunk version of "tiles" (i.e. the latest and greatest version that is used
in development releases of Struts).
* Refactor the package names, taking into account the feedback above.
In particular:
- Base package name will be "org.apache.tiles".
- Tag library classes will be "org.apache.tiles.taglib"
- Any utility classes that are needed from Struts
will be "svn copy"d into "org.apache.tiles.util".
* Add in appropriate versions of the old DTDs so that validating the definitions
file does not attempt to access the Internet.
* Establish a new (version 1.2) DTD so that standalone Tiles can diverge
in the future if it needs to, without messing up the DTDs used for 1.0 and 1.1
based applications.
* When all is well, get rid of the previously archived version
of "sandbox/tiles".
Does this sound like a reasonable plan?
Craig
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:36 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Initial checkin of standalone Tiles
>
> I agree with all of Niall's points below. I'm especially concerned at the
> loss of history mentioned in #2, since history can be so important.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> > I have a few concerns/questions about the initial checkin of standalone
> > Tiles into the sandbox, which David indicates in the SVN log is extracted
> > from Struts 1.1:
> >
> > 1) I'm wondering why this is based on Struts 1.1, rather than the current
> > version of tiles code? I did a quick scan (for starters) of the tiles
> taglib
> > and while there hasn't been a large amount of activity since Struts 1.1
> > there have been some bug fixes and some other minor changes and it seems a
> > shame to have to redo these changes rather than copying the current
> > versions.
> >
> > 2) IMO it would be better to use SVN copy to create the initial code base
> -
> > seems a shame to loose all the subversion history by adding these as new
> > artefacts. Since we have Struts 1.1 versions tagged they could be copied
> > either from the current versions or the Struts 1.1 versions.
> >
> > 3) The taglib package has been renamed to "org.apache.taglib.tiles" - I'm
> > wondering if this will create a confusion with the Jakarta Taglibs project
> > which uses "org.apache.taglibs.???" package name? Would this not be better
> > and more consistent as "org.apache.tiles.taglib"?
> >
> > 4) Similar question about the message resources which are being duplicated
> > from Struts - are we OK to use the "org.apache.util" package name for
> these
> > classes rather than "org.apache.tiles.util"? Also, its probably another
> > discussion, but maybe these need to be replaced with something else
> (commons
> > resources?) rather than duplicating from struts.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
