Raphaël Luta wrote:
What about simply moving the applications code to a different SVN branch,
so that core and apps are checked out separately.
It can be either:
/portals/jetspeed-2/ -> portal core
/trunk
/branches
/tags
/portals/applications/ ->applications
/trunk
/branches
/tags
(2 different checkouts)
or
/portals/jetspeed-2/
core/
trunk/
branches/
tags/
applications/
trunk
branches/
tags/
(either one full checkout or 2 separate checkouts)
or even better
/portals/components/ -> core portal components
/trunk
/branches
/tags
/portals/applications/ -> useful apps
/trunk
/branches
/tags
/portals/demos/ -> demo stuff
/trunk
/branches
/tags
/portals/jetspeed-2 -> full jetspeed 2 portal
/trunk
svn:externals components /portals/components/trunk
svn:externals applications /portals/applications/trunk
svn:externals bridges /portals/bridges/trunk
svn:externals demos /portals/demos/trunk
(ie manage everything in separate hierarchies and tie everything under
jetspeed-2 using svn externals property)
+1
Should a propose a formal vote on this reorg?
We have many options to try and make jetspeed 2 codebase less
intimidating/cumbersome to first-time users/developers.
(I like the 3rd approach best if we can make it work as expected as it makes it
trivial for other portals efforts to reuse and collaborate on the different
components without getting the full J2 package)
I agree
We we're simply trying to give people lots of coding examples using
different Bridges technologies. I think it would be better if we did not
hard code these demo apps into the portal.
Instead Im recommending the default Jetspeed Portal would be made up of
two webapps:
1) the portal itself
2) the jetspeed admin webapp
all other webapps would be optional, and not included in the default
deployment.
I do see the need for an admin portlet, allowing you to download portlet
applications, along with PSML pages, to add to the portal dynamically or
at install time
I can see why you would prefer it like this but we still need to make sure
it is easy for newbies / prospective users to download a working portal
with enough demo apps to get a feel of what J2 can do for them.
What if we had two different build goals:
1. ee (enterprise edition)
2. me (micro (lightweight) edition)
This is something like the minDeploy and quickStart goals currently
existing, but I think it would be more clear to have goals for specific
configurations, or even app server specific builds:
1. ee-geronimo-portal
2. ee-tomcat-portal
3. ee-jetty-portal
4. me-geronimo-portal
5. me-tomcat-portal
6. me-jetty-portal
Also remember that we have an installer now, and Ate is working on
enhancements to that
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
