i agree.
> We have for some time an applications CVS module, to which several things
> were moved already. This leads e.g. to seperate jar-files.
>
> I think there are some things now in the 'normal' CVS which would be good
> candidates for 'applification' like:
> - MMBase TaglibI agree.
> The taglib only depends on mmbase, not inversely. A mmbase-taglib.jar
> would be welcome. This would make it possible to not install the taglib, or
> (with some luck) to upgrade only the taglib. Also the taglib specific build
> issues (tld generation and so on) will appear only in specific build.xml.
> These taglib definition xml's can get a nicer location too.
it might event be worse.. what about having the bridge in it's onw package soI disagree. The bridge is in my opinion something that belongs to the MMBase core. It defines a standard interface on which application can be build. Creating different interfaces will make things less standardized and more hard for people to make applications that work on 'all' MMBase systems.
"somebody" can write an other mmbase bridge implementation?
i agree- The community application and taglib. > These are default not installed, and I think only few installation > actually use it. So putting it apart would definitely clean up things.
> - security implementations?i agree
> You can use only one at the same time, and they become more and more...
> - scan-only classes?i agree
> Who uses it anyway. It would get very clear which code is really only for
> scan. A party can be organized if effectively all classes with
> scan-references are in this application.
> Of course, some of these things will remain to be shipped 'installed' inyes.
> the bin-distro (which precisely is another issue), but the acquired
> 'modularity' seems desirable anyway.
Rob
> I think that since we started to split up mmbase in this way, we should
> finish the job, isn't it? But these are major CVS changes, so I think some
> beforehand discussion should be done.
>
> Michiel
