[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase [Round 2]

2009-10-03 Thread Indrajit Raychaudhuri
On 02/10/09 6:25 PM, David Pollak wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com mailto:indraj...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com mailto:feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 2,

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase [Round 2]

2009-10-03 Thread marius d.
Why not lift-core = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift- actor,lift-webkit) ? Br's, Marius On Oct 3, 7:33 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/10/09 6:25 PM, David Pollak wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase [Round 2]

2009-10-03 Thread Indrajit Raychaudhuri
On 04/10/09 12:32 AM, marius d. wrote: Why not lift-core = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift- actor,lift-webkit) ? 1. Initially, it didn't sound right to me (when we had lift-base, lift-util etc.). 2. DavidP commented, that lift-core currently means everything Lift. and he

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase [Round 2]

2009-10-03 Thread marius d.
Ok ... got it. Thanks. On Oct 3, 10:16 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/10/09 12:32 AM, marius d. wrote: Why not lift-core = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift- actor,lift-webkit) ? 1. Initially, it didn't sound right to me (when we had lift-base,

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase [Round 2]

2009-10-02 Thread David Pollak
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.comwrote: Folks, Following up from the previous round, I am summarizing what we discussed so far with an attempt to converge and move on to impl. Would be keen to have feedback and possibly arrive at some resolution on

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase [Round 2]

2009-10-02 Thread Indrajit Raychaudhuri
On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.comwrote: Folks, Following up from the previous round, I am summarizing what we discussed so far with an attempt to converge and move on to

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase [Round 2]

2009-10-02 Thread David Pollak
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.comwrote: On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.comwrote: Folks, Following up from the previous

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase

2009-09-28 Thread Heiko Seeberger
Indrajit, Impressive work! See my comments below ... Heiko 2009/9/27 Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com [A] lift-* prefix looks superfluous, but it's best to have one for all artifacts that generate jar (packagingjar/packaging). Also Maven reactor feels happier when artifactId ==

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase

2009-09-28 Thread David Pollak
Indrajit, Excellent work! My thoughts inline. On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.comwrote: Folks, As followup to the proposed goal of Keeping lift-core neat and small, here is the first iteration of the revised structure of Lift codebase. liftweb -

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase

2009-09-28 Thread Timothy Perrett
Indrajit, What is the purpose of lift-resources? We cannot make the lift installer part of the build process - belive me, i've looked into this extensively... basically, it boils down to needed install4j licensed on that machines which would be a stupid requirement to place on any person

[Lift] Re: RFC: Restructuring Lift Codebase

2009-09-27 Thread marius d.
Generally I like this structure.Please see my other comments below: On Sep 27, 3:44 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, As followup to the proposed goal of Keeping lift-core neat and small, here is the first iteration of the revised structure of Lift codebase.