On 19/03/2007, at 10:37 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
We extracted it out and then put it back in?
I'm not really sure what you mean here. All I was saying was the the
site stuff was already wound in, I pulled most out to a separate
module, but there are probably still things that could be improved to
get the core back to rendering a single page as you said. I think
we're in clear agreement on what's needed there, it's just a question
of packaging.
No user is exposed to doxia directly yet. All they will see is the
site plugin right now.
I know, but I'd like to understand where we are trying to eventually
get to - I assume you want this as an independently usable framework.
Do you agree with the level of modularity in that list, and how do
you see these things being bundled up?
The site stuff is definitely a separate project but I bundled it
with with site plugin. I've fine putting the site stuff in a
separate project itself but it doesn't work by itself as half the
logic is in the site plugin itself.
I started pushing that into the site renderer, but there is more work
to do, for sure.
But I'm happy to do 1, 2, 3 and that clearly dilineates the
functionality. So I can make spots for the site stuff under doxia
and put those back under there. I don't care where it is per se as
long as it's marked as site tools and isn't in doxia's core or
distributed with it.
It really comes down to the last 3 words :)
We're in full agreement the site stuff and book stuff should be
separated from the core - it's just a matter of where it resides, how
it's versioned and released. The core/api should always be usable
(say, embedded in a wiki) on it's own.
The question is whether the book/site stuff should be usable outside
the context of the site plugin. I believe it should. Given that, it
either is it's own subproject(s), or it's part of the doxia
subproject. From a managability standpoint, I prefer the latter.
This is really becoming a broader question of how we deal with these
framework subprojects - we haven't actually made a production release
of the frameworks we've built that are being used outside of Maven
(to my knowledge), but we're about to make a bunch. We're doing a
great job of modularising things, but a poor job of presenting it as
something useful and cohesive to the outside world.
I would prefer, for now:
- putting the renderers back, on the understanding that they are a
separate section of the project (maybe they should be in a
subdirectory). This makes things simpler, because we don't have to
muck with artifact IDs and versions and SVN locations for now.
- start a new thread on the broader question of how we manage our
subprojects. I think we're all interested in this given the wagon,
scm, surefire, etc releases coming through, and while I think we have
a large amount of common ground it's probably worth coming up with an
agreed template for how we do these things.
WDYT?
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
