I think the proposal looks good. Only 2 things I would comment on ...
1. Rather than put this in the sandbox I suggest we go ahead and start
by putting this in a more long term home where we think it should live.
I would vote for the blueprints style of project layout ...
http://java.sun.com/blueprints/code/projectconventions.html
using this layout structure i would suggest that for the Modular Planet
proposal that we start simply by creating an apps/planet directory which
holds build specifics for the planet webapp. eventually we should move
everything there (src, web, etc), but for now if its just a build script
and a few other things then that's fine.
then when we do start to get the Modular Roller work going we could add
apps/weblogger to the mix and then the various modules go under
components, like components/core. as we move along we can figure out
the semantics around what should be a component vs. an app, but that can
be done later. until then i think we can at least agree that anything
that creates a webapp should be under apps/*, so the new planet app
would go there.
SIDE NOTE: although it wouldn't need to be part of this proposal, i
would also suggest that if we agree to adopt the blueprints layout that
we update other parts of the repository to match for consistency. i.e.
or tools directory -> lib
2. I'm not sure I understand the need for static generation. Can't we
just do a jsp for pages and use the planetrss servlet? It just seems
like creating static generation code would be doing work that we already
expect to change.
It would probably be a good idea to see a small description of the url
layout for the planet app as well.
-- Allen
Dave Johnson wrote:
On 9/11/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed answer. Comments below...
. . .
> On 9/8/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At a slightly lower level I think that means that each component
should
>> only have code/configs that know how to run itself. Meaning that they
>> can't share any db tables, they can't share any config files, and they
>> can't share any code (aside from explicit utils/interfaces which are
>> meant to be shared).
>
> No, that's wrong. The Modular Roller proposal is to have a shared
> core that includes user management and configuration.
>
> I think what you have in mind is better characterized by the words
> "Modular Planet" which is not a bad idea -- it's just different from
the
> Modular Roller concept I have in mind. I'll describe what I mean by
> Modular Planet below.
I see what you mean now when you say 'Modular Roller' but that wasn't
really clear to me based on the proposal. My idea of what you were
trying to do was much different.
. . .
After reading this email it's clear that your plans were much more
complicated than what I was thinking about, so we were talking apples
and oranges. Now that I understand what you want to do it makes sense
and I think it's a very cool idea, but it will take a lot of work and
careful planning to do this.
OK. Full-on Modular Roller is too much for 3.1.
Instead, I've written up a new proposal called Modular Planet to
enable us to get a Planet webapp up and running quickly and
work towards modularity but not in a destabilizing way.
http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_Modular_Planet
- Dave
