Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
IMHO what's good a downloadable release if 'cocoon.sh run' does not
work?
I'm not sure if I understand your concerns here correctly. Maybe I wasn't clear
about what release artifacts I want to create. Here's the list:
1. cocoon-core-2.2.0.zip
cocoon-servlet-service-1.0.0.zip
cocoon-configuration-1.0.0.zip
2. cocoon-fop-1.0.0.zip
cocoon-forms-1.0.0.zip
... [all the other blocks]
3. cocoon-2.2-getting-started-1.0.0.zip
cocoon-2.2-legacy-getting-started-1.0.0.zip
4. cocoon-samples-1.0.0.zip
1. and 2. are the releases of our production ready sources (+ docs, +javadocs,
+binaries). If somebody wants to use Cocoon in one of his projects and doesn't
want to use Maven 2, Ivy or the Maven Ant tasks, he has to download them and add
the libraries to his (web) application.
To some extend it is even dangerous to add third-party libraries because this
might lead to the inclusion of conflicting versions (or at least to unintended
duplication) just because you add the libraries of several e.g. Cocoon blocks
that were created at different times.
The second purpose of 1. and 2. is providing a single release artifact of parts
that belong together (docs, apidocs, sources, binaries). As it was pointed out
several times by you and others, it feels strange to have only Maven 2 release
artifacts.
3. and 4. are different. 'cocoon-2.2-getting-started' is a suggestion how you
could organize a Cocoon project that uses blocks and that uses Ant as build
system. We could also have a 'cocon-2.2-legacy-getting-started' package, that
uses Cocoon the old way without using the SSF infrastructure.
'cocoon-samples' is the package for that the 'cocoon.sh run' proposal applies,
IMO.
One of the points of such release is to make it one stop shop, to
get everything up and running in one quick download.
Is 'cocoon-samples' good enough to be the one-stop-shop that you intend?
However, I would like add a big warning message, that it is not supposed to be
used as starting-point for a new Cocoon project.
So let me ask again: Do we need third-party libraries in 1. and 2. or not? (For
3. and 4. it's clear to me because they wouldn't be useable otherwise.)
WDYT?
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member, PMC Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
