Re: Release packaging

From: Aristedes Maniatis (ar..sh.com.au)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2008 - 04:02:58 EST

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: Release packaging"

    On 04/12/2008, at 7:36 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

    > On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:20 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
    >
    >> 1. I've never known what "dotemplates" means. Could we rename that
    >> to something more obvious like "entity templates"
    >
    > "Data Object Templates" :-) Anyways, the name is misleading. I don't
    > mind if we rename it to something else. "cgen-templates", or
    > something like that.

    Great. I still like "entity templates" but anything is better than
    what I thought for years was "dot templates".

    >> 2. Is v1_2 confusing since it doesn't match the Cayenne versioning
    >> and there isn't any sense of how 1.2 relates to 3.0M5.
    >
    > Since we likely won't be upgrading templates for each and every
    > release, the a mismatch between the templates version and Cayenne
    > version is sort of natural (not that I like it)... The only place
    > where it is exposed to the user is the "version" attribute of cgen,
    > where it is marked as deprecated:
    >
    > http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/cgen.html

    Yes... but.... inside the XML map is already a version number, in a
    current map it is "3.0". So we aren't being very consistent. Plus the
    XML schema will itself be versioned.

    We are exposing it to the user simply by putting it in a folder called
    1.2. I know xml version != template version, but there is considerable
    overlap.

    >> 3. Can we get rid of the deprecated templates outside the 1.2
    >> folder which really shouldn't be offered for use. If people are
    >> already using old templates, then let's support them, but let's not
    >> encourage their use.
    >
    > If we support the deprecated template, we have to include it in the
    > distro somewhere.

    Not necessarily. We can support something without encouraging its use
    for new projects. If people are already using the old template, then
    they don't need to download the files. If they aren't using the
    template, then we'd rather they didn't know about it.

    >> 4. Should we create a schema for the Cayenne XML format? It should
    >> be quite simple I think and Cayenne modeler could even perform
    >> integrity checking to ensure generated models match the schema.
    >
    > +1. Formalizing the format is good idea. Somebody has to do it though.

    Sure, I've just done a first cut of one which validates my XML schema.
    I'll put it somewhere and ask others to see if it validates everything
    that is out there.

    >> 5. There should be separation of the third-party libraries into
    >> separate folders. Some are needed by Cayenne core, some only by the
    >> modeler or cgen (eg velocity) and one by JPA.
    >
    > I think it is not worth the maintenance trouble. The intention of
    > each library is well documented in the user guide, and we can run
    > into categorization overlap issues and such.

    Fair enough. Maybe just a README in that directory would be useful.

    Ari

    -------------------------->
    ish
    http://www.ish.com.au
    Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
    phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
    GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Dec 04 2008 - 04:03:39 EST