[uportal-dev] on what to name the bikeshed, Tomcat context file

[Andrew Petro]

Cris, My viewpoint is this:  this is a bikeshed issue.  What is needed is for someone to take ownership of it, to make it better, and to be done with it.  I'm hoping that someone will be you. [ If I did make a suggestion for the renaming, it would probably be to rename it "uPortal_tomcat_5.5.xml" or something similar.  I always thought "uportal.xml" and "uportal55.xml" suggested a problem with the 'naming convention'. ] Please just go ahead and rename the file to whatever you think best, updating comments as necessary. Bikeshed issues are those where a developer comes along and proposes to make a simple, small, but real improvement.  Usually it's something that's needed done for a long time and no one did anything about it.  Since it's a simple improvement, many people *could* have an opinion about the issue, and even *could* have addressed it at any time. Since anyone could plausibly weigh in on details about the bikeshed issue, often attempts to make progress on bikeshed issues are derailed by endless discussion.  I'm probably guilty of participating in that sort of thing way too much.  And it can even reach the point where *fear of a bikeshed discussion* impedes progress. > I'd love to rename the file, > but didn't think I'd have as good a shot at getting consensus buy-in for that. "I'd love to make uPortal better, but bikeshed discussions about details of what a context file is named prevent my contributing." Cris, just re-name it.  Feel fully empowered to name this file whatever's the best quickly-thought-of name you can come up with, update the comments, make sure the build works, and we can move on. I would suggest that anyone who feels the need to push back on you about that can find lots of other uPortal issues to work on.  Maybe could work on a featureful layout manager for uPortal 3. uPortal is entitled to cause deployers a little pain in upgrading minor versions where doing so improves the platform.  Existing deployers can deal with the file rename. Andrew Well, I'd love to rename the file, but didn't think I'd have as good a shot at getting consensus buy-in for that.  I do think it could be confusing for upgraders and therefore thought I'd get some push back. I'd also like to try this under Tomcat 6 sometime, but I just don't have the cycles to do that this week.  I think a more important step is to fix the Portlet deployment situation so it doesn't rewrite the web.xml to a an ancient servlet spec version, which makes using any of the latest servlet/jsp stuff impossible (which is presumably one reason you'd be using Tomcat 6). If I did make a suggestion for the renaming, it would probably be to rename it "uPortal_tomcat_5.5.xml" or something similar.  I always thought "uportal.xml" and "uportal55.xml" suggested a problem with the 'naming convention'. But overall at this point, I'd rather make the very very small, slight change of simply removing the Tomcat 5.0 config file and commented out lines from build.properties.  This change would not it impossible to do any other rename change in the future, it's just a step along the way. ---- Cris J H Jason Shao wrote: On Jun 15, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Petro wrote: 1. Should the current uPortal55.xml file be renamed to uPortal.xml? This would be consistent with past practice, but potentially confusing for upgraders. Or Does uPortal{VERSION}.xml become the new naming convention? Or is there tooling that can always generate the right target file for us? 2. Do we need a tweaked file for Tomcat 6? Jason -- Join your friends and colleagues at JA-SIG with Altitude: June 24-27, 2007 in Denver, CO USA. Featuring keynotes by: Phil Windley, Matt Raible, Matt Asay Sessions on topics including: CAS, uPortal, Portlets, Sakai, Identity Management, and Open Source For more information & registration visit: http://www.ja-sig.org/conferences/07summer/index.html --- You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]