Re: splitting modules into modules-core and modules-shared

[Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.com>]

Andreas Hartmann wrote:

> Michael Wechner wrote:
>
>> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Wechner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I think to make things clearer what is really needed by the core
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, this will do harm. The core may not depend on modules,
>>> otherwise it will be very hard to avoid circular dependencies
>>> (e.g., you may not use a core utility class in a module
>>> which the core depends on).
>>>
>>> Either the core is self-contained, or we split the core
>>> up into modules without circular dependencies. I'd prefer the
>>> second option. It might make sense to mark modules as internal,
>>> but I'd rather suggest to use a general concept to differentiate
>>> between public and internal resources (see my other mail about
>>> this issue).
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't fully understand. The current core depends on various
>> existing modules ...
>
>
> Yes, this is unfortunately still the case. I'm trying to remove
> these dependencies, but maybe I've missed some.
> For instance, the lucene module dependency still has to be removed.


what do you mean by removing these dependencies?

>
>
>> Can you give an example, e.g. the repository layer?
>
>
> The repository layer API (interfaces) would be part of the core
> (if we keep the "core" concept). But the various implementations
> of this API could live in modules. The core wouldn't depend on
> these modules, it could be compiled independently.


but the running system would need at least one implementation  ;-)

Michi

>
> -- Andreas
>
>


-- 
Michael Wechner
Wyona      -   Open Source Content Management   -    Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com                      http://lenya.apache.org
michael.wechner@wyona.com                        michi@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org

Re: splitting modules into modules-core and modules-shared

[Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org>]

Michael Wechner wrote:

[...]

>> Yes, this is unfortunately still the case. I'm trying to remove
>> these dependencies, but maybe I've missed some.
>> For instance, the lucene module dependency still has to be removed.
> 
> 
> what do you mean by removing these dependencies?

- eliminate all Java references to classes / interfaces declared in the module
- eliminate all sitemap references to components declared in the module
- ...

If the core needs search functionality, the search API has to be separated
from the module and added to the core (e.g., as a jar file).


>>> Can you give an example, e.g. the repository layer?
>>
>>
>> The repository layer API (interfaces) would be part of the core
>> (if we keep the "core" concept). But the various implementations
>> of this API could live in modules. The core wouldn't depend on
>> these modules, it could be compiled independently.
> 
> 
> but the running system would need at least one implementation  ;-)

That's something different - that's not a dependency but a configuration
option. The core doesn't depend on a specific implementation. It's the
same as with JCR - you don't depend on Jackrabbit, or Jeceira, or ...

-- Andreas



-- 
Andreas Hartmann
Wyona Inc.  -   Open Source Content Management   -   Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com                      http://lenya.apache.org
andreas.hartmann@wyona.com                     andreas@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org