On 8/20/07, Ed Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice work Bill! I think changing all the controller.xml for each of > the Woodchip apps is the correct thing to do in this case. It sounds > like you're really getting familiar with the framework. Hopefully I'll > begin to get some traction as I just received in the dvds in the > post--thanks for that too. > > Perhaps now isn't the best time to be bringing this up, or maybe it > is. I've always thought of woodchip as a release name more than the > name for the project itself. But if you are thinking of it as the name > for the project that's a-ok with me. If going with the former I'd > probably have: > > org.openils.acq
Using it as a release name sounds like a good plan. This way you can prepare for the day when there is org.openils.opac, > org.openils.ill, etc--that was me trying to push miker_'s buttons. But > seriously it would allow the first release of the acquisitions stuff > to be called Woodchip, and then we could move on to Fargo, Sawdust or > something...without having to change the java packages. > > I guess I'm a bit confused about where framework/woodchip would > reside. Would it be > svn://svn.open-ils.org/Woodchip/trunk/framework/woodchip? That's what I was thinking. I think just > getting them into revision control somewhere is a good first step, and > then as the build process gets ironed out they may get shuffled > around. I think we might want to hold off on putting all of opentaps > into svn for the moment though if we can. Yeah, I'm picturing a mirror of the opentaps directory layout, but only as deep as we need it and we only include altered files in our repository. Make sense? Then we can just 'tar -zxf woodchip.tar.gz' on top of an opentaps build and magically have a woodchip instance. I'm going to ping the opentaps user community and see how people > typically manage builds of opentaps applications...if that sounds ok. edsu++ -bill -- Bill Erickson Equinox Software, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://esilibrary.com/
