On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Jeromy Evans < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed. The Dojo 0.43 plugin in Struts2.1.1 contains significant > improvements over the Dojo 0.40 tags bundled in 2.0.x. It's worth releasing > as-is and I'd give it a +1 today. > > It sounds like there's enough people interested to complete a Dojo 1.x > plugin. I also think it's worth creating a googlecode project for it until > it reaches a certain level of maturity. The benefit of googlecode over the > sandpit is the low barrier to contribute and informal releases. If you start the project at Google Code, remember that you will have to come through the Incubator, one way or another, to get the code back into Struts, even if that's just the IP Clearance route. And if, by "low barrier to contribute", you mean that you want to grant committership to people who are not Struts committers, then remember that either those people will lose commit rights when you bring the code back here, or you will have to go through a different incubation process to deal with the additional committers. On the other hand, creating the project in the Struts sandbox means that it is immediately open to any Struts committer, all of the resources are already set up, and getting a release out is dependent only upon a vote to move the code from the sandbox to the main code line. I'd say that path will be a whole lot less hassle - unless, that is, you expect the Dojo 1.x plugin to be a major project that requires additional committers and spans an extended period of time to get into shape equivalent to that of today's Dojo plugin. -- Martin Cooper > > Musachy Barroso wrote: > > > I don't think we should wait at all. Refactoring dojo out of core was > > one of the main things for 2.1 and it's been there for a year already. > > Unless Dojo 1.0 is a lot, way, way better than the older versions, I > > would say you will find lots of surprises. IMO you should set it up as > > a project on googlecode or somewhere else and we can all > > contribute/test and eventually bring it on (or just keep it there and > > get rid of our current plugin). > > > > my 2 centavos :) > > > > musachy > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > --- Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1 > > > release out, > > > > my question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old > > > version > > > > of dojo as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?, and > > > do > > > > we want to put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the > > > bundled > > > > version and then jump to a much newer version as a minor version > > > release? > > > > > > So the questions are how well tested are the new Dojo tags, and if > > > they're > > > not tested well enough how long would it take to test them? Lastly, > > > how much > > > rework, if any, is required to match the functionality of the 0.4x > > > plugin? > > > > > > My impression is still that Dojo 1.0 is pretty different from Dojo > > > 0.4x, and > > > that this is a non-trivial project--but that's a guess made from > > > ignorance. > > > Is there any evidence to the contrary? Have the tags been tested > > > (even > > > manually) on the client side to bulk-verify behavior? > > > > > > Due to some immediate responsibilities, my availability for working > > > on a Dojo > > > 1.0 plugin is limited and conditional: > > > > > > -- I have some time I can dedicate to *testing* new Dojo tags. > > > -- I don't have the time to learn Dojo 1.0 well and implement much > > > changed > > > and/or new functionality if both the cost and risk are high. > > > -- The window within that time is available is short, and dwindling. > > > -- The more people working on it the more likely I am to make the > > > time > > > because of a perceived lower risk. > > > > > > Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require, and > > > who's > > > available to make that effort? > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
