I understand the desire to cut back on components that are not contributing to the codebase.
There is no reason to distract (potential) contributors with unsupported code. I suppose I would prefer it if the code were still accessible (remove it from the Isis pom framework, sure) so that if someone develops a strong desire to resurrect and maintain it, they can! PS: I like some of the features of the HTML viewer (e.g. automatically contributing items that have been recently viewed, to action method parameters). And Dan has provided a suggestion on how to add this functionality to Wicket... Regarding dropping units that don't receive updates - I wouldn't use a plain time-based criterion.. it should only kick in if the component in question requires developer effort (e.g. an accepted change elsewhere in the framework requires effort to update - beyond automatic refactoring, that is). On 21 Mar 2013 at 12:34, Dan Haywood wrote: > All, > Something I've been meaning to raise for a while is whether we should > retire the HTML viewer. (I did mail Kevin about this offline because he > has historically been the most active user of this viewer; I'll let him > respond with his views rather than me summarizing them) . > > My view is that we're only actively developing Scimpi and Wicket, and that > both are more functional than the HTML viewer that is not being developed. > I'm keen that we trim our codebase of stuff that isn't in active > development. I think that we should therefore retire this viewer. > > To generalize the point, it might also make sense to institute some sort of > rule that we retire stuff that hasn't had any updates after a certain > period of time, eg 12 or 18 months. (Perhaps such a rule might require a > formal vote, but probably worth discussing here) > > Anyway, your thoughts welcome. > > Thx > Dan
