Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Given the discussion, how about the following idea; - Remove the dojo plug-in from the S2 codebase and put it, in it's current state, into a googlecode project. My main driver for doing the updates was to update the S2.1 code to bring it inline with the latest version, but perhaps we should put our hands up and admit that S2's focus is not on Ajax UI widgets and recommend that web developers go out and use whichever framework they want as opposed to limiting them to the choice made by the tag developers. After all, there is little in the way of S2.1 code for ajax, all we have is some code that acts as a wrapper to make dojo look like it's part of S2. We can put in the readme a pointer to the googlecode project, and see how it develops from there. What do people think? Al. - Original Message - From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:16 AM Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Jeromy Evans < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Agreed. The Dojo 0.43 plugin in Struts2.1.1 contains significant improvements over the Dojo 0.40 tags bundled in 2.0.x. It's worth releasing as-is and I'd give it a +1 today. It sounds like there's enough people interested to complete a Dojo 1.x plugin. I also think it's worth creating a googlecode project for it until it reaches a certain level of maturity. The benefit of googlecode over the sandpit is the low barrier to contribute and informal releases. If you start the project at Google Code, remember that you will have to come through the Incubator, one way or another, to get the code back into Struts, even if that's just the IP Clearance route. And if, by "low barrier to contribute", you mean that you want to grant committership to people who are not Struts committers, then remember that either those people will lose commit rights when you bring the code back here, or you will have to go through a different incubation process to deal with the additional committers. On the other hand, creating the project in the Struts sandbox means that it is immediately open to any Struts committer, all of the resources are already set up, and getting a release out is dependent only upon a vote to move the code from the sandbox to the main code line. I'd say that path will be a whole lot less hassle - unless, that is, you expect the Dojo 1.x plugin to be a major project that requires additional committers and spans an extended period of time to get into shape equivalent to that of today's Dojo plugin. -- Martin Cooper Musachy Barroso wrote: > I don't think we should wait at all. Refactoring dojo out of core was > one of the main things for 2.1 and it's been there for a year already. > Unless Dojo 1.0 is a lot, way, way better than the older versions, I > would say you will find lots of surprises. IMO you should set it up as > a project on googlecode or somewhere else and we can all > contribute/test and eventually bring it on (or just keep it there and > get rid of our current plugin). > > my 2 centavos :) > > musachy > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1 > > release out, > > > my question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old > > version > > > of dojo as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?, > > and > > do > > > we want to put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the > > bundled > > > version and then jump to a much newer version as a minor version > > release? > > > > So the questions are how well tested are the new Dojo tags, and if > > they're > > not tested well enough how long would it take to test them? Lastly, > > how much > > rework, if any, is required to match the functionality of the 0.4x > > plugin? > > > > My impression is still that Dojo 1.0 is pretty different from Dojo > > 0.4x, and > > that this is a non-trivial project--but that's a guess made from > > ignorance. > > Is there any evidence to the contrary? Have the tags been tested > > (even > > manually) on the client side to bulk-verify behavior? > > > > Due to some immediate responsibilities, my availability for working > > on a Dojo > > 1.0 plugin is limited and conditional: > > > > -- I have some time I can dedicate to *testing* new Dojo tags. > > -- I don't have the time to learn Dojo 1.0 well and implement much > > changed > > and/or new functionality if both the cost and risk are high. > > -- The window within that time is available is short, and dwindling. > > -- The more people working on it the more likely I am to make the > > time > > because of a perceived lower risk. > > > > Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require, > > and > > who's > > available to make that effort? > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > ---
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Martin Cooper wrote: On the other hand, creating the project in the Struts sandbox means that it is immediately open to any Struts committer, all of the resources are already set up, and getting a release out is dependent only upon a vote to move the code from the sandbox to the main code line. I'd say that path will be a whole lot less hassle - unless, that is, you expect the Dojo 1.x plugin to be a major project that requires additional committers and spans an extended period of time to get into shape equivalent to that of today's Dojo plugin. -- Martin Cooper I agree transition from googlecode back into Apache is an important consideration and a googlecode decision should be made only after we understand the level of effort involved. My gut feeling is that a complete Dojo 1.x plugin requires significant effort and additional committers. Others would know better than me though. Do you have a contact over at the Dojo that : - is familiar with the current Struts Dojo capabilities and can give an indication of the effort to migrate to 1.x; or - more importantly, confirm whether recreating custom tags is a sensible approach at all. It may be better for both projects that we make a concerted effort to demonstrate dojo + struts integration rather than creating another plugin that encapsulates Dojo. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.1 build
FWIW, Struts Annotations 1.0.3 has been released and approved, but I
haven't had time to finish it off by signing the jar and moving it to
the official repo. I'll try to find some time in the next few days if
no one beats me to it.
Don
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it is something we should do first. It's on the list, but I
> usually forget about it until the last minute ... :)
>
> Are you setup to digitally sign the releases, Jeromy? It's the
> one-time section of Creating and Signing a Distributiob
>
> *
> http://struts.apache.org/2.0.11.1/docs/creating-and-signing-a-distribution.html#CreatingandSigningaDistribution-Onetime
>
> For a "wet run" of the release, that's usually the blocker for people.
> After that, it's a bit of a bother, but not actually difficult to do.
>
> Since it seems like you've already done most of the work, would you
> like to add your name to the release plan as a co-manager (along with
> mine)?
>
> * http://struts.apache.org/2.0.11.1/docs/version-notes-211.html
>
>
> -Ted.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Jeromy Evans
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is the release of struts-annotations-1.0.3 a blocker? It's not in central
> > yet.
> > struts-annotations dependencies:
> > ./core/pom.xml:425: 1.0.3-20080216.121126-3
> > ./plugins/dojo/pom.xml:261: 1.0.3-20080123.123514-2
> > ../maven/struts-annotations/pom.xml: 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeromy Evans wrote:
> >
> > > Ted, I tried to get you started with a dryRun of release:prepare but I'm
> > still missing xwork.jar:2.1.1. The mvn output is at
> > http://people.apache.org/~jeromy/buildlog1.txt
> > >
> > > Other details:
> > >
> > > * JIRA: No open issues except the omnibus ticket
> > (https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-2421)
> > > * Release Notes: reasonably up-to-date:
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/Version+Notes+2.1.1
> > >
> > > > svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/struts2/trunk
> > STRUTS_2.1.1
> > >
> > > > svn info: Revision: 644624
> > > >
> > >
> > > * check pom.xml repositories (I'm not sure values should be here)
> > > > find . -name "pom.xml" -exec grep -i -H -n '' {}
> > > ./pom.xml:72
> >
> scp://people.apache.org/www/people.apache.org/builds/struts/${pom.version}/m2-staging-repository
> > > ./apps/pom.xml:73 http://repository.codehaus.org
> > >
> > > > find . -name "pom.xml" -exec grep -i -H -n '' {}
> > > ./pom.xml
> >
> scp://people.apache.org/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository
> > >
> > > * change mvn settings.xml to a clean localRepository and dryRun
> > release:prepare
> > >
> > >
> > > > mvn release:prepare -P release,all,alljars,j4,pre-assembly
> -DdryRun=true
> > > >
> > >
> > > The mvn output is at http://people.apache.org/~jeromy/buildlog1.txt
> > > That's as far as I got because I shouldn't have to install:install-file
> > xwork-2.1.1 into my localRepository, so I guess I have to wait a little
> > longer for it to replicate?
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Jeromy Evans
> > >
> > > Ted Husted wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm still heads-down, but I could run a build through the gauntlet.
> > > > Can anyone confirm that everything else we want to do is done, and
> > > > we're at the tag and roll point?
> > > >
> > > > -Ted.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ted, others,
> > > > >
> > > > > xwork 2.1.1 is out and should be in the repos shortly.
> > > > > So we should be ready for a Struts 2.1.1 release build now.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks for waiting,
> > > > > Rainer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And, if we're ready to roll a Struts after that, I'd be happy to
> > step
> > > > > > through the process Wednesday night.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Ted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Rainer Hermanns
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, but I have to delay the xwork release until tomorrow.
> > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > Rainer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey there,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am working on the open issues for xwork 2.1.1 over the
> > weekend,
> > > > > > > > so that the release could be out on monday.
> > > > > > > > Since lots of fixes and changes were done affecting S2.1 core
> > > > > > > > features, testing S2.1 with latest xwork snapshots would help
> to
> > get
> > > > > > > > both codebases stablelized.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please report xwork errors to XWork Jira [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ted, if you have some time next week for get
Re: 2.1 build
Thanks, Don.
BTW, getting setup for digital signing is harder than it sounds. Every
committer should consider generating a signature and putting it on
file with the foundation. Signing isn't hard, but it can be a
stumblingblock when it comes to posting a release.
*
http://struts.apache.org/2.0.11.1/docs/creating-and-signing-a-distribution.html#CreatingandSigningaDistribution-Onetime
Since ASF distributions are sometimes passed around, it's important
that we sign them, so if a strange problem is reported with a
distribution, we confirm whether it's one of ours, or a forgery.
-Ted.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, Struts Annotations 1.0.3 has been released and approved, but I
> haven't had time to finish it off by signing the jar and moving it to
> the official repo. I'll try to find some time in the next few days if
> no one beats me to it.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, it is something we should do first. It's on the list, but I
> > usually forget about it until the last minute ... :)
> >
> > Are you setup to digitally sign the releases, Jeromy? It's the
> > one-time section of Creating and Signing a Distributiob
> >
> > *
> http://struts.apache.org/2.0.11.1/docs/creating-and-signing-a-distribution.html#CreatingandSigningaDistribution-Onetime
> >
> > For a "wet run" of the release, that's usually the blocker for people.
> > After that, it's a bit of a bother, but not actually difficult to do.
> >
> > Since it seems like you've already done most of the work, would you
> > like to add your name to the release plan as a co-manager (along with
> > mine)?
> >
> > * http://struts.apache.org/2.0.11.1/docs/version-notes-211.html
> >
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Jeromy Evans
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the release of struts-annotations-1.0.3 a blocker? It's not in
> central
> > > yet.
> > > struts-annotations dependencies:
> > > ./core/pom.xml:425: 1.0.3-20080216.121126-3
> > > ./plugins/dojo/pom.xml:261: 1.0.3-20080123.123514-2
> > > ../maven/struts-annotations/pom.xml: 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeromy Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ted, I tried to get you started with a dryRun of release:prepare but
> I'm
> > > still missing xwork.jar:2.1.1. The mvn output is at
> > > http://people.apache.org/~jeromy/buildlog1.txt
> > > >
> > > > Other details:
> > > >
> > > > * JIRA: No open issues except the omnibus ticket
> > > (https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-2421)
> > > > * Release Notes: reasonably up-to-date:
> > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/Version+Notes+2.1.1
> > > >
> > > > > svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/struts2/trunk
> > > STRUTS_2.1.1
> > > >
> > > > > svn info: Revision: 644624
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > * check pom.xml repositories (I'm not sure values should be here)
> > > > > find . -name "pom.xml" -exec grep -i -H -n '' {}
> > > > ./pom.xml:72
> > >
> scp://people.apache.org/www/people.apache.org/builds/struts/${pom.version}/m2-staging-repository
> > > > ./apps/pom.xml:73 http://repository.codehaus.org
> > > >
> > > > > find . -name "pom.xml" -exec grep -i -H -n '' {}
> > > > ./pom.xml
> > >
> scp://people.apache.org/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository
> > > >
> > > > * change mvn settings.xml to a clean localRepository and dryRun
> > > release:prepare
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > mvn release:prepare -P release,all,alljars,j4,pre-assembly
> -DdryRun=true
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The mvn output is at http://people.apache.org/~jeromy/buildlog1.txt
> > > > That's as far as I got because I shouldn't have to
> install:install-file
> > > xwork-2.1.1 into my localRepository, so I guess I have to wait a little
> > > longer for it to replicate?
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Jeromy Evans
> > > >
> > > > Ted Husted wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm still heads-down, but I could run a build through the gauntlet.
> > > > > Can anyone confirm that everything else we want to do is done, and
> > > > > we're at the tag and roll point?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Ted.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ted, others,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > xwork 2.1.1 is out and should be in the repos shortly.
> > > > > > So we should be ready for a Struts 2.1.1 release build now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for waiting,
> > > > > > Rainer
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And, if we're ready to roll a Struts after that, I'd be happy to
> > > step
> > > > > > > through th
Scope Plugin
Does anyone know if there are plans to include the Scope plugin (http://cwiki.apache.org/S2PLUGINS/scope-plugin.html) in the core, and perhaps add some canned interceptor stacks that include it? I see this as missing core component that has offers a great value add to the framework and it's users. Bob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
--- Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My main driver for doing the updates was to update the S2.1 code to bring > it inline with the latest version, but perhaps we should put our hands up and > admit that S2's focus is not on Ajax UI widgets Nobody has yet provided any information as to the potential cost of making Dojo 1.0 work and nobody answered my question regarding what level of functionality currently exists in the Dojo 1.0 plugin, so I'm pretty much unable to come to any cogent conclusion. If it came to a vote I'd probably say (a) leave the current Dojo plugin where it is, and (b) put any new tag plugins on Google Code (like my semi-dormant jQuery plugin and others people are working on). I don't know what the ASF policy is on "endorsing" particular code, but it seems like if a new plugin got to the point of being usable it would be simple enough to add a "we currently recommend using..." or "among the better tag libraries are..." or whatever. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.1 build
I have been waiting and waiting for the convention plugin :( That's really the only reason I've been anticipating the 2.1 release. What's involved in "moving it over"? -- From: "Brian Pontarelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:58 AM To: "Struts Developers List" Subject: Re: 2.1 build Yeah, I was hoping to have time to get the convention plugin into the main repository, but I just haven't had anytime at all. It will have to wait until 2.2 unless someone else wants to move it over. At this point I can't even recall the outstanding issues and design changes that were being discussed before. Anyone else remember those? -bp Musachy Barroso wrote: It would be easier to ask if anyone is working on something that needs to be included (SmartUrls?). regards musachy On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm still heads-down, but I could run a build through the gauntlet. Can anyone confirm that everything else we want to do is done, and we're at the tag and roll point? -Ted. On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted, others, > > xwork 2.1.1 is out and should be in the repos shortly. > So we should be ready for a Struts 2.1.1 release build now. > > thanks for waiting, > Rainer > > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Ted Husted wrote: > > > > And, if we're ready to roll a Struts after that, I'd be happy to step > > through the process Wednesday night. > > > > -Ted. > > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Sorry, but I have to delay the xwork release until tomorrow. > > > cheers, > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey there, > > > > > > > > I am working on the open issues for xwork 2.1.1 over the weekend, > > > > so that the release could be out on monday. > > > > Since lots of fixes and changes were done affecting S2.1 core > > > > features, testing S2.1 with latest xwork snapshots would help to get > > > > both codebases stablelized. > > > > > > > > Please report xwork errors to XWork Jira [1]. > > > > > > > > Ted, if you have some time next week for getting out the release, > > > > that would be awesome. > > > > > > > > cheers, > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > [1] http://jira.opensymphony.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will help testing it (I don't have any application on production > > > > > tho). Ted if you could do it, it would be great, I think it is about > > > > > time we get a build out there. > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > musachy > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Is there much to do beside tag it, build it, and sign it? I could > help > > > > > > with that much, so long as other people are testing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Ted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Pedro Herrera > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Musachy Barroso wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any news on the 2.1 build? Is anyone looking into it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > musachy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Rainer Hermanns > > > > aixcept > > > > Mariahilfstrasse 9 > > > > 52062 Aachen - Germany > > > > w: http://aixcept.de/ > > > > t: +49-241-4012247 > > > > m: +49-170-3432912 > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Rainer Hermanns > > > aixcept > > > Mariahilfstrasse 9 > > > 52062 Aachen - Germany > > > w: http://aixcept.de/ > > > t: +49-241-4012247 > > > m: +49-170-3432912 > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > >
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Dave, I don't think anyone does have a good handle on how much work it would be to integrate Dojo 1.0 into the S2.1 tag framework. It's one of those things that the time taken to properly evaluate and estimate the work necessary may be longer than the time to do the work, and even when the work is under way there may be some unforeseen issues even if an estimate was made. The Dojo guys have tried to make it easier by providing an api change list from 0.4 to 0.9 then from 0.9 to 1.0, but how that applies to the S2.1 code is something that will only make sense to someone who has the code fresh in their mind. This is why I started to work on the changes and kept the code as a separate entity, that way if it does prove to be a mountain rather than a molehill there's nothing being held up, and if it turns out to be a molehill then we get all the benefits of supporting, matured code with a smaller footprint in a short period of time. Al. - Original Message - From: "Dave Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework --- Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My main driver for doing the updates was to update the S2.1 code to bring it inline with the latest version, but perhaps we should put our hands up and admit that S2's focus is not on Ajax UI widgets Nobody has yet provided any information as to the potential cost of making Dojo 1.0 work and nobody answered my question regarding what level of functionality currently exists in the Dojo 1.0 plugin, so I'm pretty much unable to come to any cogent conclusion. If it came to a vote I'd probably say (a) leave the current Dojo plugin where it is, and (b) put any new tag plugins on Google Code (like my semi-dormant jQuery plugin and others people are working on). I don't know what the ASF policy is on "endorsing" particular code, but it seems like if a new plugin got to the point of being usable it would be simple enough to add a "we currently recommend using..." or "among the better tag libraries are..." or whatever. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
