Given the discussion, how about the following idea;
- Remove the dojo plug-in from the S2 codebase and put it, in it's current
state, into a googlecode project.
My main driver for doing the updates was to update the S2.1 code to bring it
inline with the latest version, but perhaps we should put our hands up and
admit that S2's focus is not on Ajax UI widgets and recommend that web
developers go out and use whichever framework they want as opposed to
limiting them to the choice made by the tag developers. After all, there is
little in the way of S2.1 code for ajax, all we have is some code that acts
as a wrapper to make dojo look like it's part of S2.
We can put in the readme a pointer to the googlecode project, and see how it
develops from there.
What do people think?
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
