+1 I'm all for splitting up into action components, but retaining a Continuum interface as a single entry point to those
- Brett John Casey wrote: > I think we have to be careful when splitting up a public api like > this. It's possible Continuum may need to be embedded someday, and if > so, it would be much better to have a single interface for controlling > it...even if it means that interface delegates most of its work. While > I think you can probably factor out a lot of the actual logic, we need > to preserve that coherent, single-interface accessibility IMO. > Besides, we do still have to maintain public API compatibility, since > it's only a x.y release... > > My 2 cents. > > -john > > Emmanuel Venisse wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to know your opinions about the continuum refactoring for 1.1 >> >> What we'll do? >> >> Replace plexus-summit/velocity by JSP/WebWork/SiteMesh >> >> What i'd like to do? >> >> Actually, DefaultContinuum class is our centralized code class. With >> a framework like webwork, i think we can improve the architecture by >> splitting it with this : >> - all data manipulations (CRUD) will be in several DAO classes >> - all utility methods (is*InQueue, checkoutProject, buildProject* >> will be in several utility classes (or action classes in webwork terms) >> - in DefaultContinuum, we'll keep only initialization methods >> >> With this refactoring, i think it will be more easy to migrate to >> webwork, and maintenance will be more easy. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Emmanuel >> >> >> >