Ok ... got it. Thanks.
On Oct 3, 10:16 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/2...
>
> Of these, #1 doesn't hold true anymore, thus nullified.
>
> Cheers, Indrajit
>
>
>
> > Br's,
> > Marius
>
> > On Oct 3, 7:33 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 02/10/09 6:25 PM, David Pollak wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
> >>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak<[email protected]
> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
> >>> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>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 [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
