On 1/9/08, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 9:01 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/9/08, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My fault on the dupe - I've been shoving user and dev into the same > > > folder for years, so tend not to notice which list I'm on. > > > > > > I've started with String taglib - best to scratch the itch you have > > > etc. First easy steps are done, next steps are the taglibs specific > > > bits. > > > > > > Namely: > > > > > > * Generating the TLD (and putting in the jar as taglib.tld). > > > * Building an example war. > > > * Building a doc war. > > > > > <snip/> > > > > My initial impression at recreating the current release artifacts > > using m2 (whether we should stick to the current style of release > > artifacts TBD, but current packaging has worked for us so far) has > > been that each taglib will have a multi-module build, one that has a > > jar packaging (for taglibs-foo.jar) and two that will have war > > packaging (foo-examples.war and foo-doc.war). Probably need some > > antrun execution for the TLDs, possibly for parts of the doc jar > > (especially for RDC, which uses tag files and custom stylesheets to > > generate TLD reference docs). > > > > The above plan will require quite a reshuffle in the svn layout (hence > > I opted for a branch). > > Yeah - I really hate having to have multiple projects. The example and > doc war are not projects, they are part of the website in Maven terms > - we just don't want to do things in xdoc or apt. Feels that it should > still be entirely doable as a single project. > <snip/>
* Per m2 terminology: s/project/module/ * Agreed doc war is mvn site-like, though examples war is not * apt I can understand, but I like xdoc, docbook etc. ;-) > I think we should try for an atomic project; see if that works. Only > if we can't make that fit should we go the triple project route. > <snap/> Sure, I think I will try a multi-module build for RDC (I suspect that suits the m2 modules and packaging design), but I am absolutely in favor of trying other styles (if that needs any saying :-). > > > The Ant system has the ability to output different versions of the > > > specification - I think we'll probably be losing that given that we > > > have to specify which servlet jar we're using. So I'm not sure if > > > 'Generating the TLD' is worthwhile, or if we should just change the > > > xml file into an actual tld file. I guess it depends if we lose any > > > data. > > > > > <snap/> > > > > Yup, see antrun bit above. About different specifications, it may be > > possible to do that using m2 profiles. > > I think this is the first decision - is there any value in keeping the > tld generation. It's not as if we've been building and distributing > taglibs for different spec versions; the RM has always chosen one. > > The simpler we keep the build, the more we can maintain with less > effort. While powerful, I think the build system's complexity has been > one factor in lack of energy to do anything. > <snip/> I say feel free to simplify. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
