David M Johnson wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
now that i think about it, maybe it is not a good idea to squeeze this
in at such a late time in the release process.
I see that last point, but these changes are isolated to two Servlets,
don't impact any existing features and are disabled by default.
yes, but the moment they go out in a release we are required to support
them forever, so we had better be sure about it.
It would be helpful and much more convenient for me and other folks
working on this stuff to avoid the custom build setup. I really don't
think there is a downside here.
i know that's a pain, but that is not a reason to move code out of the
sandbox.
so, after taking a closer look at the code i think everything looks
fine, but i am still -1 on committing this to the core codebase right
now for 2 reasons.
1. as i said before, i think it is a little late in the release cycle to
just be throwing this in. any code that we put in a release we are
responsible for, so i don't like the idea of putting this code in the
release if we think it's still experimental and want to keep it low profile.
2. more importantly, i think we should think more carefully about the
servlet endpoints we choose for these services. we are planning to
reform the roller url structure for Roller 3.0 and i am just about to
send that proposal out to the dev list. since both atom services
introduce new urls which will be affected by this change i think it's
better not to rush the decision to put them in the core codebase.
i think the best thing to do is to leave this out of the 2.2 release
which is essentially finished. as soon as we are done releasing Roller
2.2 (late this week or early next week?) then we can move this code into
the trunk and have it ready for the Roller 2.3 release. we can then
have a discussion on the list about what urls we want for the service
endpoints.
-- Allen
- Dave
