You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2005/02/16 18:29:18 UTC
Moving blocks out of the core
It seems that we all agree more or less on moving the blocks out of the
core, so which directory structure do we want to use in svn?
We recently had this suggestion:
/cocoon/trunk
/cocoon/blocks/core/
/cocoon/blocks/supported/
/cocoon/blocks/unsupported/
And then under core, supported, unsupported, come the different blocks
with a trunk, tags, releases directory each, right?
I think the first step is easy, we could move the blocks to the new
directory structure and then use svn:external to link the blocks into
the core, so nothing really changes but we are one step further.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It would make me uneasy too if we did it now. But if the
>>> infrastructure (solid contracts between a block and core + an easy
>>> to use deployment tool) it should be the goal to have independant
>>> blocks with their own release cycles.
>>>
>> But I thought the proposal is to move blocks now?
>
>
> Moving now, but use svn:external
> (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch07s03.html) to include them at
> the place where they are now.
> When the new build system is in place, we can _think_ about cutting
> this link.
>
> Independant release cycles of blocks are another story and need much
> more work. Maybe 2.3 will bring them.
Thanks. You made me much more comfortable. :-)
Ralph
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
>>
>> It would make me uneasy too if we did it now. But if the
>> infrastructure (solid contracts between a block and core + an easy to
>> use deployment tool) it should be the goal to have independant blocks
>> with their own release cycles.
>>
> But I thought the proposal is to move blocks now?
Moving now, but use svn:external
(http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch07s03.html) to include them at the place
where they are now.
When the new build system is in place, we can _think_ about cutting this link.
Independant release cycles of blocks are another story and need much more work.
Maybe 2.3 will bring them.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independant Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> It would make me uneasy too if we did it now. But if the
> infrastructure (solid contracts between a block and core + an easy to
> use deployment tool) it should be the goal to have independant blocks
> with their own release cycles.
>
But I thought the proposal is to move blocks now?
Ralph
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
>> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And then under core, supported, unsupported, come the different blocks
>>> with a trunk, tags, releases directory each, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, e.g.
>>
>> /cocoon/blocks/core/forms/trunk/ ............. the current forms block
>> /cocoon/blocks/core/forms/branches/ .......... empty for now
>> /cocoon/blocks/core/forms/tags/ .............. empty for now
>>
> Oh wow. I guess I didn't get that. So the proposal IS to have every
> block on its own release schedule.
> I can't put my finger on why this makes me uneasy, but it does.
It would make me uneasy too if we did it now. But if the infrastructure (solid
contracts between a block and core + an easy to use deployment tool) it should
be the goal to have independant blocks with their own release cycles.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independant Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>>
>> And then under core, supported, unsupported, come the different blocks
>> with a trunk, tags, releases directory each, right?
>
>
> yes, e.g.
>
> /cocoon/blocks/core/forms/trunk/ ............. the current forms block
> /cocoon/blocks/core/forms/branches/ .......... empty for now
> /cocoon/blocks/core/forms/tags/ .............. empty for now
>
Oh wow. I guess I didn't get that. So the proposal IS to have every
block on its own release schedule.
I can't put my finger on why this makes me uneasy, but it does.
Ralph
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> It seems that we all agree more or less on moving the blocks out of the
> core, so which directory structure do we want to use in svn?
>
> We recently had this suggestion:
> /cocoon/trunk
> /cocoon/blocks/core/
> /cocoon/blocks/supported/
> /cocoon/blocks/unsupported/
>
> And then under core, supported, unsupported, come the different blocks
> with a trunk, tags, releases directory each, right?
yes, e.g.
/cocoon/blocks/core/forms/trunk/ ............. the current forms block
/cocoon/blocks/core/forms/branches/ .......... empty for now
/cocoon/blocks/core/forms/tags/ .............. empty for now
> I think the first step is easy, we could move the blocks to the new
> directory structure and then use svn:external to link the blocks into
> the core, so nothing really changes but we are one step further.
an excellent idea. So my work on the build system won't break Cocoon and lowers
a bit the pressure to do everything at once.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independant Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by WHIRLYCOTT <ph...@whirlycott.com>.
Would it be worth considering adding either 'legacy' or 'deprecated' to
contain blocks that are going to disappear at some unspecified point in
the future (or maybe s/unsupported/deprecated/)? I'm just suggesting
that 'unsupported' may not be strongly worded enough for new users who
start developing applications with certain blocks that are clearly
dead-end streets.
phil.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> It seems that we all agree more or less on moving the blocks out of the
> core, so which directory structure do we want to use in svn?
>
> We recently had this suggestion:
> /cocoon/trunk
> /cocoon/blocks/core/
> /cocoon/blocks/supported/
> /cocoon/blocks/unsupported/
>
> And then under core, supported, unsupported, come the different blocks
> with a trunk, tags, releases directory each, right?
>
> I think the first step is easy, we could move the blocks to the new
> directory structure and then use svn:external to link the blocks into
> the core, so nothing really changes but we are one step further.
>
> Carsten
>
--
Whirlycott
Philip Jacob
phil@whirlycott.com
http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> It seems that we all agree more or less on moving the blocks out of the
> core, so which directory structure do we want to use in svn?
>
> We recently had this suggestion:
> /cocoon/trunk
> /cocoon/blocks/core/
> /cocoon/blocks/supported/
> /cocoon/blocks/unsupported/
>
> And then under core, supported, unsupported, come the different blocks
> with a trunk, tags, releases directory each, right?
Yes
> I think the first step is easy, we could move the blocks to the new
> directory structure and then use svn:external to link the blocks into
> the core, so nothing really changes but we are one step further.
+1
/Daniel
Re: Moving blocks out of the core
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
This makes me a little uncomfortable. So blocks will now have a release
schedule that is independent from core? I'm just wondering if that is a
good thing or a bad thing at this time. And if that is so, why isn't
each block on its own release? (That is just rhetorical, as I don't
believe we are ready for that - but we will be when "real" blocks emerge.)
Ralph
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> It seems that we all agree more or less on moving the blocks out of the
> core, so which directory structure do we want to use in svn?
>
> We recently had this suggestion:
> /cocoon/trunk
> /cocoon/blocks/core/
> /cocoon/blocks/supported/
> /cocoon/blocks/unsupported/
>
> And then under core, supported, unsupported, come the different blocks
> with a trunk, tags, releases directory each, right?
>
> I think the first step is easy, we could move the blocks to the new
> directory structure and then use svn:external to link the blocks into
> the core, so nothing really changes but we are one step further.
>
> Carsten
>