On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 14:15, David M Johnson wrote: > Comments below... > > On Mar 3, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote: > > > I had a short discussion about this with Dave following some > > comments I had about the first draft of the Atlas proposal and I > > wanted to follow up here on the list. I think that now is the > > right time to start to push the Planet aggregator specific code out > > into it's own project. Here are some reasons to do this ... > > > > 1. maintain proper decoupling of Roller and planet code. the core > > and planet code serve two very different functions which in many > > cases will want to be used independently. moving the planet code > > into its own project ensures that as we move forward there is no > > undesired dependencies between the two code bases. > > > > 2. keep Roller codebase as trimmed and clean as possible. by > > moving the planet code into its own project we not only trim down > > the Roller code base but we can also trim down on library > > dependencies, etc. this reduces maintenance overhead on Roller > > developers who are not as interested in working on the planet > > codebase, keeps the Roller webapp as compact as possible, and also > > lessens the learning curve for new Roller developers because there > > is less code. > > > > 3. makes it easier to use the planet code independently. i believe > > one of the ultimate goals of the planet code is to provide a > > standalone solution for content aggregation and it is much easier > > to do that if the code is in its own project. of course, we still > > want to allow for good integration between Roller and the planet > > code, but i don't think that will be hard. this also provides an > > opportunity for developers to work on the planet code who are not > > interested in working on Roller itself. > > > Just to state/restate my position: > > The goal of the planet code was to allow externally hosted blogs to > be included in the aggregation on the front page of the Roller site > and the administration of that feature to be included in the Roller UI.
sounds like a good feature. > > I'm definitely -1 on removing Planet from the standard release of > Roller. I don't see any reason to remove that feature. that's fine. we don't have to remove it from the release itself, but i do still think that we should move the code out into it's own unique project space. the only difference would be that instead of building Roller, which includes the planet code in it right now. you would build the planet code as its own module (jar file) and include that jar file when doing a Roller build. > > I'm +1 on making it possible to create a standalone version of Planet > (not just a command line Planet tool) and that definitely requires > some decoupling and more modularity. that's all that i am proposing. i happen to believe this is best done by isolating the planet code and ensuring there is no inappropriate dependencies between the 2 codebases. -- Allen > > - Dave
