On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Claude Brisson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In other Tools news, there are a few unpublished tools i've been >> >> sitting on that are in various states of completion/polish. I had >> >> intended them to be part of a 2.1 release, but that now feels too far >> >> away to consider. As such, i intend to add them to 2.0, while >> >> somehow denoting them as "beta" level. Really, we are overdue for a >> >> means of classifying tools, as they all have various levels of support >> >> and polish. Obviously, i will mention their status in their docs and >> >> leave them out of the default tools.xml files, but i was wondering if >> >> i should take it further. Perhaps, by putting them in a "beta" >> >> package like org.apache.velocity.tools.generic.beta.FooTool? Any >> >> thoughts on this? >> > >> > The most convenient for tools candidates that still need some work is >> > probably to have them sit in the svn tree with their final package names >> > but under a "beta" or "sandbox" or "experimental" subdirectory. We can >> > put this subdirectory in the released source tree and mention them in >> > the docs, interested people will be able to use them and help completing >> > them. And 2.1 can come out not that far after 2.0, you're not alone :-) >> >> Hmm. That would only be convenient if there were an ant task to build >> those, which i suppose could be done. But only one of the two i >> intend to could be called experimental; the other is one i already >> make significant use of and deserves better, i think. I just haven't >> time to improve the docs or make a demo page in the showcase, and i'd >> rather not add a new "final" feature between beta4 and final releases. >> Also, a new directory and task(s) support is extra work. > > I'd vote for a "src/sandbox" directory without any dedicated task, each > tool in its own subdirectory with a small README file. Interested users > can copy the source files towards the main source tree and issue "ant > jar[.generic|.view|.struts]". The only thing to be done in the build > file is to include src/sandbox in the released sources. But not in the > released binary. > > If you use a different package name, early adopters will have to upgrade > their parameters once the tools go into production.
That is still more work in total for both me and any would be adopters and will reduce their accesibility and thus may inhibit development of them by anyone else. But whatever, these are not all that important of tools, and my main desire is to just put them out there. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
