On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>> Is there no middle ground?
> There was middle ground for years, and it led to a lot of confusion
> as there is basically no standardization in WO projects pre-2008,
> and the tools to support that insanity were themselves insane.
>
>> I agree with Mike/Anjo/Chuck that supporting endless
>> configurability is not a very good idea. In this case; if I comply
>> and restructure my project layout I lose 8 years of cvs history -
>> not happy about that!
> All changes have trade-offs, and it sucks to lose historical data, I
> know. At the moment, there is no requirement to change, but it will
> likely become progressively more difficult to stay the way you are.
> Switching to SVN is one option here -- you could svn import your cvs
> history then do renames. I know this is not an option for some
> people, and you'll just have to decide what make sense for your
> projects at that point.
FWIW, we did not use the FBL layout either. There was some work to
move (lots of projects and custom Ant scripts) and we did lose some
history, but I feel the benefits in ease of use and lack of problems
justify this.
>> How did you decide which project structure to support? To me a WO
>> project is primarily a Java project. I've seen few Java projects
>> with a layout that match Wonder projects. If I create a new blank
>> Java project in eclipse I get a 'src' and a 'bin' folder. Seems
>> natural to me to have a 'lib' folder...
> The non-maven layout (FBL) was based on Project Wonder's project
> organization, as it was the largest open WO project at the time, and
> its structure mode a lot of sense for us for several reasons. For
> Maven, as I understand it, the it is the same annoying layout as all
> maven projects ;) This was discussed on the wolips list quite a
> while ago, and it has made life quite a bit easier for the people
> who continually provide support to people in the WO community. Just
> go look at the list archives from when WOLips supported arbitrary
> project layouts.
Truth! I'd much rather spend time looking at "real" problems.
Chuck
>> Mike said he will support two project layouts - Wonder and Maven.
>> How will this dual layout be supported?
> I don't know yet.
>
>> Is it possible to let Wonder/Maven define which things need to be
>> configurable, but let individual users do the actual configuration
>> (it could be something that is neither Wonder nor Maven compliant)?
> You can configure whatever you want using whatever techniques are
> available to you (custom maven mojopluginarchitypes or custom ant
> scripts in non-maven), I'm just not guaranteeing that everything in
> WOLips is going to work if you do. If you stick with the recommended
> approaches, you're going to be in the mainline of development and
> odds are things will work more smoothly long term. I'm not going to
> go out of my way to break people using other layouts, but if a
> feature is substantially easier to implement presuming a certain
> layout, standard layouts are going to win.
>
>> Great tools are not characterized by "zero flexibility" but by
>> careful considerations of requirements and trade-offs.
> I agree completely, and we arrived at this decision by careful
> consideration of requirements and trade-offs.
>
> ms
>
>
-- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP DevelopmentPractical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Feb 02 2009 - 14:11:15 EST