On 04/10/09 12:32 AM, marius d. wrote:
>
>
> Why not lift-core = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift-
> actor,lift-webkit) ?
1. Initially, it didn't sound right to me (when we had lift-base,
lift-util etc.).
2. DavidP commented, that lift-core currently means "everything Lift."
and he thought we'd need another name.
3. DavidB pointed out an old thread[a] and suggested that:
lift-core == lift-full, but to be backward compatible with the time
when there is one jar (lift-core), we keep the name.
[a]
http://groups.google.com/group/lift-committers/browse_thread/thread/2fdadf2f9db51a04/0bae3866bbc6d581
Of these, #1 doesn't hold true anymore, thus nullified.
Cheers, Indrajit
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Oct 3, 7:33 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri<indraj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/10/09 6:25 PM, David Pollak wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
>>> <indraj...@gmail.com<mailto:indraj...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
>>> > <indraj...@gmail.com<mailto:indraj...@gmail.com>>wrote:
>>
>>> > > Folks,
>>
>>> > > Following up from the previous round, I am summarizing what we
>>> > > discussed so far with an attempt to converge and move on to
>>> impl.
>>> > > Would be keen to have feedback and possibly arrive at some
>>> resolution
>>> > > on the outstanding items. (Meaty stuff below the module
>>> structure)
>>
>>> > > liftweb
>>
>>> > > - lift-core [H]
>>> > > - lift-base [J]
>>> > > - lift-util [J]
>>> > > - lift-actor
>>> > > - lift-json
>>> > > - lift-webkit [K]
>>
>>> > > - lift-persistence
>>> > > - lift-mapper
>>> > > - lift-record
>>> > > - lift-jpa
>>
>>> > > - lift-modules [L]
>>> > > - lift-testkit
>>> > > - lift-osgi
>>> > > - lift-wizard
>>> > > - lift-widgets
>>> > > - lift-machine
>>> > > - lift-textile
>>> > > - lift-facebook
>>> > > - lift-amqp
>>> > > - lift-xmpp
>>> > > - lift-openid
>>> > > - lift-oauth
>>> > > - lift-paypal
>>> > > - lift-jta
>>
>>> > > - lift-archetypes
>>> > > - ...
>>
>>> > > - lift-examples [M]
>>> > > - ...
>>
>>> > > - lift-site
>>
>>> > > - lift-resources [N]
>>> > > - lift-root-model
>>> > > - lift-site-skin
>>> > > - lift-installer
>>> > > - misc config resources (scaladoc, javadoc etc.)
>>
>>> > > Resolved since:
>>
>>> > > [A] lift-* prefix is fine/preferred for top level categories
>>> (dir_name
>>> > > == artifactId) [Heiko]
>>
>>> > > [B] For Lift users not using Maven these *-all.jars will be
>>> valuable.
>>> > > Assembly preferred to meta [Heiko]
>>
>>> > > [C] lift-testkit to move to lift-modules. Applications would
>>> use it
>>> > > under 'test' scope. [David]
>>
>>> > > [D] lift-json to be part of core [Marius]
>>
>>> > > [E] lift-persistence being separated from lift-core into it's
>>> own
>>> > > category and made optional [Marius]
>>
>>> > > [F] No deep nesting within modules (no submodules) for now
>>> [Heiko]
>>
>>> > > [G] Presentations and docs to be in central repository for now
>>> > > [+1:David/Tim/Derek, +0:Indrajit, -1:Heiko/Viktor].
>>> > > Settling for central repo at the moment (a: least change, b: in
>>> a
>>> > > hurry to converge, c: effect of living in largest democracy in
>>> the
>>> > > world!). Later on, I'll attempt to make this part of site
>>> build and
>>> > > make them more conveniently available.
>>
>>> > > Outstanding since:
>>
>>> > > [H] lift-core has to get a better and more appropriate name
>>> (and also
>>> > > to avoid confusion since lift-core == 'everything lift' at the
>>> > > moment).
>>> > > Starting with two that come to my mind.
>>> > > - lift-lite (Members of this category make up the
>>> lightweight,
>>> > > minimalistic Lift distribution that would help you build a Lift
>>> based
>>> > > application)
>>> > > - lift-genesis (Members of this category make up the
>>> genesis of
>>> > > your Lift based application)
>>> > > - lift-mini (Minimal Lift distribution to get started with
>>> Lift)
>>> > > - lift-minimal (Same as above)
>>
>>> > How about lift-web (the stuff you need to build a web application)
>>
>>> Hmm, lift-web vs lift-web/lift-webkit could add to confusion. Too many
>>> combination of lift+web (liftweb.net<http://liftweb.net>, lift-web,
>>> lift-webkit) for
>>> comfort.
>>
>>> okay.
>>
>> Now that lift-base is free for grab, I am settling for lift-base for
>> lack of any other clear winner.
>>
>> So we have lift-base = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift-actor,
>> lift-webkit)
>>
>> Feel free to comment in favor or against (vote/veto) if someone has a
>> better option popping up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > [J] lift-base, lift-util needs more unambiguous names.
>>> > > - lift-base -> lift-common
>>> [+1:Naftoli/Derek/Stuart/Marius/Tim/
>>> > > Heiko/Viktor, +0:Indrajit -1:DavidB (very strong)] But still
>>> good to
>>> > > have even better option.
>>
>>> > +1 for lift-common, but I'm not wedded to the name.
>>
>>> > > - lift-util -> lift-util (no change) [+1:Marius/David
>>> (status
>>> > > quo)]
>>
>>> > I'm going to mandate that this not change. The cost of changing
>>> is too high
>>> > and the value to changing is minimal.
>>
>>> > > - lift-util -> lift-webutil
>>> [+1:Naftoli/Derek/Stuart/Indrajit/Tim/
>>> > > Heiko/Viktor]
>>
>>> > Veto.
>>
>>> Fair do. let's settle for lift-common and lift-util for now.
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Cheers, Indrajit
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
