RE: Suggested changes to woproject

From: Andrus (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Fri Aug 09 2002 - 18:01:47 EDT

  • Next message: Reimer Mellin: "WOStart (was: woproject)"

    Hi Reimer,

    I applied Juan's patch, but I think we still need a better way to organize
    tasks.

    At 12:00 AM 8/9/2002 -0400, Reimer Mellin wrote:
    >it all depends what the long term goals are in respect to the ant support.
    >Personally I am ready to totally ditch the script approach of Apple in the
    >short term and migrate to war deployment in the long-term.

    Me too ;-).

    But as far as I am concerned, one of the WOProject goals is to be
    compatible with what Apple offers, and then provide all the cool
    alternatives, like the one submitted by Juan yesterday. Also I think that
    there always must be a way to deploy WOApp without a container - this is
    what makes it so great compared to JSP.

    >So in that respect I think it makes sense to <b>reduce</b> development
    >overhead in supporting the script based approach altogether and therefore I
    >would 'vote' for a direct modification instead of a sub-classing approach.
    >Why do you want to maintain a superclass functionality which is destined to
    >die :-) ?

    I agree, I think it will die. But we are already maintaining it at the
    moment and will maintain it as long as there is any noticeable number of
    users who need it.

    Now about the ways to separate tasks. The patch submitted by Juan did not
    have your WOStart included. Quoting Juan:

    ---------
    Pure Java startup

    This is based on Reimer Mellin's work to create a Java class which replaces
    the scripts that currently start up the WebObjects application. This is
    called WOStart, please contact ...
    ---------

    So at the moment scripts is the only option at WOProject. Do you plan to
    opensource this work as well?

    Then we may organize tasks by the function performed - WOApplication
    (creates app with scripts) and WOStandAlone (creates app based on WOStart),
    WOWar (creates .war's). So the inheritance hierarchy can go like that:

    // has all core reusable resource copying logic
    abstract WOAppBase extends WOTask

    // adds scripts
    WOApplication extends WOAppBase

    // adds embedding of frameworks
    WOStandAlone extends WOAppBase

    // adds web.xml and .war packaging (by internally calling War task)
    WOWar extends WOStandAlone

    This gives us 3 tasks with clearly defined build output.

    What do you think?

    Andrus

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Aug 09 2002 - 18:01:40 EDT