Just to be clear, I am not sure that 2.2 would eliminate the problem. I have nothing running on JPublish to test it. I'm only making the assumption that it might work based on the change log making mention of change of namespace in 2.3
--- Si Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, Andy - > > I agree completely on having standards for the code. > > It's not a matter of putting new jpublish code into > OFBIZ but just a > matter of giving people backward compatibility so > they can stay with > the project and, as a result, hopefully continue to > contribute to it. > > As a pragmatic solution, how about we try Chris > Howe's suggestion to > use bsf-2.2 instead of -2.4, so we can just either > keep jpublish.jar > in the project or at least keep it compatible with > OFBIZ? > > On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:26 PM, A. Zeneski wrote: > > > I see no reason to maintain the jpublish code in > OFBiz. Due to the > > fact > > all future components and enhancements to existing > components will all > > be widget based. > > > > If the core OFBiz no longer depends on JPublish, > then I see no > > reason to > > maintain the old code. > > > > On the flip side, older versions of OFBiz which > are not being > > updated to > > use the current version will continue to include > the JPublish > > component > > and should have no effect on these projects. > > > > All new contributions to OFBiz should follow the > widget pattern, as > > such > > I see no point in maintaining the old JPublish > handlers. > > > > I don't like the idea of new contributions > following older patterns. > > IMO, the code (ajax) should be converted to use > JSON request handler > > pattern. I assume that since JPublish was used, > this was intended to > > follow the XML method for responses. > > > > Maybe we should open up more discussion regarding > new patterns. I > > see a > > number of AJAX being implemented in the near > future and my biggest > > fear > > is that all of these will be following different > patterns. > > > > We need to set a standard and follow it through > the code base. > > > > Andrew > > > > David E Jones wrote: > >> > >> From a project perspective a branch seems like a > lot of overhead for > >> this. Are you saying that you want to maintain > such a branch? This > >> would > >> include regular merges, etc. > >> > >> The Screen Widget has been around for over 2 > years, and JPublish > >> hasn't > >> been maintained in at least that much time. > Perhaps it's time to > >> recommend that everyone stop using it? > >> > >> Part of the trouble is that there are other > things that JPublish > >> depends > >> on that we'll want to update or change, and any > of those (like > >> bsf) that > >> get in the way of updating other things will just > branch out to a big > >> old problem... > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Si Chen wrote: > >> > >>> How about we make a branch called "newbsf"? We > can put all the > >>> changes > >>> for the new bsf jars there, and if Adam ever > shows up with a new > >>> jpublish then we can merge it back in? > >>> > >>> On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:11 PM, David E Jones > wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I am not opposed to this. > >>>> > >>>> It would have been nice if this had come up as > an approach during > >>>> earlier and ongoing discussions as quite a few > changes have now > >>>> been > >>>> made to exclude JPublish (it would have to be > put back into the > >>>> NOTICE/LICENSE files, the Libraries Included in > OFBiz page, removed > >>>> from the OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES and change build > files, code, etc. > >>>> > >>>> We would also need to keep a repository or at > least a patch and > >>>> how-to somewhere so the jar file could be > reproduced. > >>>> > >>>> -David > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:13 PM, Si Chen wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> David, > >>>>> > >>>>> We and some other people we work with all have > OFBIZ-based > >>>>> applications from the ofbiz 3.x days which are > jpublish-based, > >>>>> so to > >>>>> remove jpublish from the SVN and put in > something which is > >>>>> incompatible with it basically breaks all of > our applications and > >>>>> forces us to start to diverge from the core > ofbiz code base in > >>>>> a way > >>>>> that we don't want to. > >>>>> > >>>>> I know what you mean about jpublish being not > actively maintained, > >>>>> but the flipside it seems just to work ok for > us, so we don't need > >>>>> to do too much for it. > >>>>> > >>>>> I guess if we can coordinate with Adam Heath > to get a new > >>>>> bsf-compatible jpublish in the SVN then > everything will be fine. > >>>>> Until then, are you planning to do something > with the new bsf > >>>>> modules? Could it wait until Adam finds it > in his kindness to > >>>>> send > >>>>> us an updated jpublish that he keeps > promising? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:13 PM, David E Jones > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do we really want to do this? Part of the > reason we wanted to > >>>>>> remove JPublish is that there doesn't seem to > be much a community > >>>>>> around it and no one is maintaining it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In other words, if we want it in OFBiz, we > have to maintain it... > >>>>>> Unless it is really useful for something, I > have a big problem > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> that... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, I guess in order to decide it would be > good to know what > >>>>>> you're > >>>>>> planning on (or have done) with JPublish that > wouldn't work with > >>>>>> other things... and then see if that > justifies maintaining > >>>>>> JPublish. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -David > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Si Chen wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> When do you think you can send this in? > >>>>>>> > === message truncated ===
