xsp depending on session-fw?

[Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>]

...while fighting my way through the block dependencies:

Any objections to move this class

./src/blocks/xsp/java/org/apache/cocoon/components/language/markup/xsp/XSPSessionFwHelper.java

into the session-fw block? Since that seems to be
the only reason for the xsp dependency on the session-fw

...or did I miss something?

cheers
--
Torsten

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>]

Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>is there a logicsheet for session-fw ?
>>
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=110813469829620
> 
> Hm... another block just because of that one class?

Well whatever you do to fix this it won't make it worse :-)


> Just curious ...why was it moved in the first place?

Dunno, it makes life only more complicated than it is...

Vadim

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>]

On Jue, 14 de Abril de 2005, 9:42, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>>
>>
>> Isn't session-fw deprecated?
>>
>>
> No, not yet :)
>
>>
>> I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard
>> (compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp
>> dependency,
>> which is soft (configuration only).
>>
> Yeah, but that's imho very ugly. But to be honest, I'm tired of these
> xsp and dependency discussions. If someone things it should be
> different, do it if you think that it helps our users.

What about creating mocks for the session-fw dependencies in XSP? Perhaps
not the cleaner solution, but a practical one.;-)

WDYT?

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo.

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>...but we can also just create mock
>>class as Antonio suggested. Easy,
>>fast, works.
>>
>>Deal?
Deal :)

> 
> 
> Yep. As long as the XSP session-fw helper stay in the XSP block. IMHO, we
> are trying to remove dependecies to XSP block everywhere.
> 
Yepp.

> Is that OK?
> 
Sure :)

Carsten

Re: [SPAM] Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>]

On Sab, 16 de Abril de 2005, 9:05, Torsten Curdt dijo:
>>>I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard
>>>(compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp
>>> dependency,
>>>which is soft (configuration only).
>
> Exactly :)
>
>> Yeah, but that's imho very ugly.
>
> Uglier? It would be just a single class
> that's just not being used if there is
> no XSP. While like currently you force
> everyone to include the session-fw at
> compile time.
>
>> But to be honest, I'm tired of these
>> xsp and dependency discussions.
>
> Yes, me too :)
>
>> If someone things it should be
>> different, do it if you think that it helps our users.
>
> I think having that single class
> in the session-fw would probably
> be better ...at least from a user's
> POV.
>
> ...but we can also just create mock
> class as Antonio suggested. Easy,
> fast, works.
>
> Deal?

Yep. As long as the XSP session-fw helper stay in the XSP block. IMHO, we
are trying to remove dependecies to XSP block everywhere.

Is that OK?

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo.

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>]

>>I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard 
>>(compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp dependency, 
>>which is soft (configuration only).

Exactly :)

> Yeah, but that's imho very ugly.

Uglier? It would be just a single class
that's just not being used if there is
no XSP. While like currently you force
everyone to include the session-fw at
compile time.

> But to be honest, I'm tired of these
> xsp and dependency discussions. 

Yes, me too :)

> If someone things it should be
> different, do it if you think that it helps our users.

I think having that single class
in the session-fw would probably
be better ...at least from a user's
POV.

...but we can also just create mock
class as Antonio suggested. Easy,
fast, works.

Deal?

cheers
--
Torsten

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> 
> Isn't session-fw deprecated?
> 
>
No, not yet :)

> 
> I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard 
> (compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp dependency, 
> which is soft (configuration only).
> 
Yeah, but that's imho very ugly. But to be honest, I'm tired of these
xsp and dependency discussions. If someone things it should be
different, do it if you think that it helps our users.

Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>]

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
> 
>>>So we agreed to cut the dependencies and move the logicsheet to the XSP
>>>block and make the rest of Cocoon XSP free! In fact this reverses the
>>>dependencies so one idea was to make the additional blocks mentioned above.
>>
>>
>>It does ....but TBH:
>>
>>having a some classes or a logicsheet inside a block is only a weak
>>dependency while having all xsp related classes and logicsheet inside
>>the xsp block is a strong compile time dependency.
>>
>>Sorry to bring this up again ...but it's really annoying and does
>>not really help anything IMHO. Creating a block just for those few
>>classes or files feels like bloat to me.
>>
> 
> Yeah, sure - but as we regard XSP as legacy and other blocks like
> session-fw are not legacy,

Isn't session-fw deprecated?


> the dependencies like they are now should
> cause less pain. It seems wrong to me that a non legacy block depends on
> a legacy one; even if only a small part is affected.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, but if we move things back now (and I'm really -1 on
> this), we will have the same discussion again in lets say three months
> and everything is questioned again.
> 
> So, again in general you're right :) but in this case with XSP being
> legacy it's imho better this way. I personally would not create extra
> blocks just for the logicsheets but leave them in the XSP block. But
> *if* XSP users *really* can't live with this extra dependency *than* the
> solution is to create this extra blocks.

I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard 
(compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp dependency, 
which is soft (configuration only).

Vadim

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>So we agreed to cut the dependencies and move the logicsheet to the XSP
>>block and make the rest of Cocoon XSP free! In fact this reverses the
>>dependencies so one idea was to make the additional blocks mentioned above.
> 
> 
> It does ....but TBH:
> 
> having a some classes or a logicsheet inside a block is only a weak
> dependency while having all xsp related classes and logicsheet inside
> the xsp block is a strong compile time dependency.
> 
> Sorry to bring this up again ...but it's really annoying and does
> not really help anything IMHO. Creating a block just for those few
> classes or files feels like bloat to me.
> 
Yeah, sure - but as we regard XSP as legacy and other blocks like
session-fw are not legacy, the dependencies like they are now should
cause less pain. It seems wrong to me that a non legacy block depends on
a legacy one; even if only a small part is affected.

Don't get me wrong, but if we move things back now (and I'm really -1 on
this), we will have the same discussion again in lets say three months
and everything is questioned again.

So, again in general you're right :) but in this case with XSP being
legacy it's imho better this way. I personally would not create extra
blocks just for the logicsheets but leave them in the XSP block. But
*if* XSP users *really* can't live with this extra dependency *than* the
solution is to create this extra blocks.

Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>]

> So we agreed to cut the dependencies and move the logicsheet to the XSP
> block and make the rest of Cocoon XSP free! In fact this reverses the
> dependencies so one idea was to make the additional blocks mentioned above.

It does ....but TBH:

having a some classes or a logicsheet inside a block is only a weak
dependency while having all xsp related classes and logicsheet inside
the xsp block is a strong compile time dependency.

Sorry to bring this up again ...but it's really annoying and does
not really help anything IMHO. Creating a block just for those few
classes or files feels like bloat to me.

cheers
--
Torsten

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>is there a logicsheet for session-fw ?
>>
>>
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=110813469829620
> 
> 
> Hm... another block just because of that one class?
> Just curious ...why was it moved in the first place?
> 
We discussed this several times: we wanted to reduce the dependencies to
the legacy XSP block. Just because of this one single logicsheet in the
session-fw block, you need the XSP block even if you're not using the
logicsheet.
So we agreed to cut the dependencies and move the logicsheet to the XSP
block and make the rest of Cocoon XSP free! In fact this reverses the
dependencies so one idea was to make the additional blocks mentioned above.

Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>]

>> is there a logicsheet for session-fw ?
> 
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=110813469829620

Hm... another block just because of that one class?
Just curious ...why was it moved in the first place?

cheers
--
Torsten

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>]

Leszek Gawron wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
> 
>> ...while fighting my way through the block dependencies:
>>
>> Any objections to move this class
>>
>> ./src/blocks/xsp/java/org/apache/cocoon/components/language/markup/xsp/XSPSessionFwHelper.java 
>>
>>
>> into the session-fw block? Since that seems to be
>> the only reason for the xsp dependency on the session-fw
>>
>> ...or did I miss something?
> 
> is there a logicsheet for session-fw ?

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=110813469829620

Vadim

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Leszek Gawron <lg...@apache.org>]

Torsten Curdt wrote:
> ...while fighting my way through the block dependencies:
> 
> Any objections to move this class
> 
> ./src/blocks/xsp/java/org/apache/cocoon/components/language/markup/xsp/XSPSessionFwHelper.java
> 
> into the session-fw block? Since that seems to be
> the only reason for the xsp dependency on the session-fw
> 
> ...or did I miss something?
is there a logicsheet for session-fw ?

-- 
Leszek Gawron                                                 MobileBox
lgawron@apache.org                              http://www.mobilebox.pl