Oke, I will come up with a proposal for breaking up the components in a way that still enables us to easily keep the current adapters in their own structure.
As for the UI testen, it is always a beast. We do have some experience with tools like Webdriver and others. Will have a look at that as well. On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM, <karl.wri...@nokia.com> wrote: > I think that providing tools/help for implementing the UI pieces of > connectors is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, I strongly > believe that the UI components should remain described as part of the > connector interfaces. Breaking their implementations out within individual > connectors is also reasonable, but unless there is a compelling reason to > refactor all the individual connectors in that way, I would hold off that > project until there are better unit tests for the connector UI components. > If you are willing to contribute such tests, I think going that way would be > worth consideration. > > I'd like to see a more detailed proposal before I comment further. > > Thanks, > Karl > > -----Original Message----- > From: jettro.coenra...@gmail.com [mailto:jettro.coenra...@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:37 AM > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Connector architecture question and suggestion > > Hi, > I am having a look at the connectors. At the moment to my opinion the > classes for (all) connectors are to big. This is partly due to the way the > interfaces are structured and partly due to the implementation of html in > java. For example the RssConnector now has almost 6000 lines of code and > the > JdbcConnector has almost 2000 lines of code. To my opinion this can be > improved by making separate components for presenting and configuring the > connectors in the crawler-ui web project and for the part needed by the > runner. Abstracting the html from the actual classes can help a lot as > well. > Maybe some utility methods to make creating these html pages easier is nice > as well. > > I am willing to investigate this path further, but I'd like to have ideas > of > other developers. It would be nice to know if others feel like this can be > improved as well. > > It might be interesting to look at a technique like wicket for the ui part. > Than you can package the html code together with the java code in one jar. > No difficult repackaging is required and you can still create nice > interfaces. I also read that others want to have a look at something like > velocity, of course that can be a valid option as well. > > So what is your opinions about it? > > regards > > Jettro Coenradie > http://www.gridshore.nl > -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl
