You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org> on 2004/03/05 13:18:08 UTC

From Woody to CocoonForms

In the next few days I want (no promise ;-) to start with renaming Woody 
to CocoonForms. First I want to move the _core_ which means that I want 
to make one simple example run.

Of course, this renaming has impact on many names and in order to avoid 
doing the same thing twice I want to here other opinions on this:

namespaces:
http://apache.org/cocoon/woody/definition/1.0
-->
http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0

packages:
org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation
-->
org.apache.cocoon.forms.transformation

classnames:
AbstractWoodyAction
-->
AbstractCocoonFormsAction

xconf:
<woody-datatype logger="woody">
-->
<forms-datatype logger="forms">


What do you think?


I don't do the whole transformation at once because I know that I don't 
have enough time. So I hope that some others jump in <hint/> ;-)
But this has also a technical impact: the libs (oro, 
reporter-expressions) have to move for some time to lib/optional (IIUC).

-- 
Reinhard


Re: WOODY FREEZE! Was: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:

> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>
>> In the next few days I want (no promise ;-) to start with renaming 
>> Woody to CocoonForms. First I want to move the _core_ which means 
>> that I want to make one simple example run.
>
>
>
> First of all, let's freeze cocoon woody - so we do not loose any 
> patches in the process, and it is easier to operate frozen woody... I 
> propose to start WOODY FREEZE tomorrow morning - if you have good 
> patches lying on your drive - commit them now :-)

Yes please. I don't start the tranformation before tomorrow afternoon.

>
>
> Before renaming namespaces. This should be a new block:
> woody block --> forms block

yes.

>
>
>> Of course, this renaming has impact on many names and in order to 
>> avoid doing the same thing twice I want to here other opinions on this:
>>
>> namespaces:
>> http://apache.org/cocoon/woody/definition/1.0
>> -->
>> http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>> packages:
>> org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation
>> -->
>> org.apache.cocoon.forms.transformation
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>> classnames:
>> AbstractWoodyAction
>> -->
>> AbstractCocoonFormsAction
>
>
>
> I suggest AbstractFormsAction. It's already in Cocoon, so no reason to 
> mention it.

ok

>
>
>
>> xconf:
>> <woody-datatype logger="woody">
>> -->
>> <forms-datatype logger="forms">
>
thanks Vadim!

-- 
Reinhard


WOODY FREEZE! Was: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:

> In the next few days I want (no promise ;-) to start with renaming 
> Woody to CocoonForms. First I want to move the _core_ which means that 
> I want to make one simple example run.


First of all, let's freeze cocoon woody - so we do not loose any patches 
in the process, and it is easier to operate frozen woody... I propose to 
start WOODY FREEZE tomorrow morning - if you have good patches lying on 
your drive - commit them now :-)


Before renaming namespaces. This should be a new block:
woody block --> forms block


> Of course, this renaming has impact on many names and in order to 
> avoid doing the same thing twice I want to here other opinions on this:
>
> namespaces:
> http://apache.org/cocoon/woody/definition/1.0
> -->
> http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0


+1


> packages:
> org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation
> -->
> org.apache.cocoon.forms.transformation


+1


> classnames:
> AbstractWoodyAction
> -->
> AbstractCocoonFormsAction


I suggest AbstractFormsAction. It's already in Cocoon, so no reason to 
mention it.



> xconf:
> <woody-datatype logger="woody">
> -->
> <forms-datatype logger="forms">


+1

Vadim


Re: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Le Vendredi, 5 mars 2004, à 14:09 Europe/Zurich, Reinhard Pötz a écrit :
>
>> ...Changing package or class names is the smallest problem if you use 
>> Eclipse ;-)
>
>
> sure, but what about docs, samples and people's minds ;-)
>
>>
>>>
>>>> ...I don't do the whole transformation at once because I know that 
>>>> I don't have enough time. So I hope that some others jump in 
>>>> <hint/> ;-)...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And that's a big problem, the risk of having a half-finished 
>>> renaming is big if we aim too high.
>>
>>
>> You could be right, so let's change the procedure:
>>
>> 1. create a new "cforms" block
>>    (BTW: I would set up the new block with the name: "cforms")
>> 2. move Java and Xconf files
>> 3. check in into CVS
>> 4. write the stylesheet
>> 5. move the examples
>
>
> +1
> and the idea is to delete the woody block once this works, right?

Yes

-- 
Reinhard


Re: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Vendredi, 5 mars 2004, à 14:09 Europe/Zurich, Reinhard Pötz a écrit :

> ...Changing package or class names is the smallest problem if you use 
> Eclipse ;-)

sure, but what about docs, samples and people's minds ;-)

>
>>
>>> ...I don't do the whole transformation at once because I know that I 
>>> don't have enough time. So I hope that some others jump in <hint/> 
>>> ;-)...
>>
>>
>> And that's a big problem, the risk of having a half-finished renaming 
>> is big if we aim too high.
>
> You could be right, so let's change the procedure:
>
> 1. create a new "cforms" block
>    (BTW: I would set up the new block with the name: "cforms")
> 2. move Java and Xconf files
> 3. check in into CVS
> 4. write the stylesheet
> 5. move the examples

+1
and the idea is to delete the woody block once this works, right?

-Bertrand


Re: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Le Vendredi, 5 mars 2004, à 13:18 Europe/Zurich, Reinhard Pötz a écrit :
>
>> ...
>> namespaces:
>> ....
>> packages:
>> ...
>> classnames:
>> ...
>> xconf:
>> ...
>> What do you think?
>
>
> Quite frankly, I think changing implementation-specific names 
> (packages, classes) is not worth the hassle.
>
> I'd change just the namespaces maybe, assuming they *might* be used 
> for another implementation besides woody in the future, the block name 
> and mostly the documentation.
>
> I don't mind keeping woody as the technical name in some places, IMHO 
> the name change disruption is not worth it.


Changing package or class names is the smallest problem if you use 
Eclipse ;-)

>
>> ...I don't do the whole transformation at once because I know that I 
>> don't have enough time. So I hope that some others jump in <hint/> 
>> ;-)...
>
>
> And that's a big problem, the risk of having a half-finished renaming 
> is big if we aim too high.

You could be right, so let's change the procedure:

 1. create a new "cforms" block
    (BTW: I would set up the new block with the name: "cforms")
 2. move Java and Xconf files
 3. check in into CVS
 4. write the stylesheet
 5. move the examples

WDYT?

Would be nice if somebody could help me with 4 and 5. Any takers?

-- 

Reinhard


Re: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Vendredi, 5 mars 2004, à 13:18 Europe/Zurich, Reinhard Pötz a écrit :

> ...
> namespaces:
> ....
> packages:
> ...
> classnames:
> ...
> xconf:
> ...
> What do you think?

Quite frankly, I think changing implementation-specific names 
(packages, classes) is not worth the hassle.

I'd change just the namespaces maybe, assuming they *might* be used for 
another implementation besides woody in the future, the block name and 
mostly the documentation.

I don't mind keeping woody as the technical name in some places, IMHO 
the name change disruption is not worth it.

> ...I don't do the whole transformation at once because I know that I 
> don't have enough time. So I hope that some others jump in <hint/> 
> ;-)...

And that's a big problem, the risk of having a half-finished renaming 
is big if we aim too high.

-Bertrand


Re: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Bruno Dumon wrote:

>On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 13:54, Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>  
>
>>Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Sounds good to me. +1
>>>
>>>>>From your description, I guess you want to add a new block for
>>>Cocoon Forms in parallel to the Woody one, right?
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Yep as it is much work and I'm not sure on all parts if they are 
>>_official_ or not.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm, I thought this was just about renaming woody and nothing more?
>  
>
Yes, you're right.
As said in the reply to Betrand's question I'll move all sources and 
configuration files at once and then check them in as one package. After 
this we can start the discussion which parts of Cocoon Forms are 
official, what is missing and so on.

Hope this makes my intentions clear for you, doesn't it.

-- 
Reinhard


Re: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Bruno Dumon <br...@outerthought.org>.
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 13:54, Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
> >Sounds good to me. +1
> >
> >>From your description, I guess you want to add a new block for
> >Cocoon Forms in parallel to the Woody one, right?
> >  
> >
> Yep as it is much work and I'm not sure on all parts if they are 
> _official_ or not.

Hmm, I thought this was just about renaming woody and nothing more?

-- 
Bruno Dumon                             http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org                          bruno@apache.org


Re: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

>Sounds good to me. +1
>
>>>From your description, I guess you want to add a new block for
>Cocoon Forms in parallel to the Woody one, right?
>  
>
Yep as it is much work and I'm not sure on all parts if they are 
_official_ or not.

-- 
Reinhard


RE: From Woody to CocoonForms

Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Sounds good to me. +1

>From your description, I guess you want to add a new block for
Cocoon Forms in parallel to the Woody one, right?

Carsten 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reinhard Pötz [mailto:reinhard@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:18 PM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: From Woody to CocoonForms
> 
> 
> In the next few days I want (no promise ;-) to start with 
> renaming Woody to CocoonForms. First I want to move the 
> _core_ which means that I want to make one simple example run.
> 
> Of course, this renaming has impact on many names and in 
> order to avoid doing the same thing twice I want to here 
> other opinions on this:
> 
> namespaces:
> http://apache.org/cocoon/woody/definition/1.0
> -->
> http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0
> 
> packages:
> org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation
> -->
> org.apache.cocoon.forms.transformation
> 
> classnames:
> AbstractWoodyAction
> -->
> AbstractCocoonFormsAction
> 
> xconf:
> <woody-datatype logger="woody">
> -->
> <forms-datatype logger="forms">
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> I don't do the whole transformation at once because I know 
> that I don't have enough time. So I hope that some others 
> jump in <hint/> ;-) But this has also a technical impact: the 
> libs (oro,
> reporter-expressions) have to move for some time to 
> lib/optional (IIUC).
> 
> --
> Reinhard
> 
>