You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@roller.apache.org by Dave <sn...@gmail.com> on 2013/04/06 22:43:43 UTC
Roller module refactoring
One thing that makes it really irritating to deal with (and maintain) the
Roller code is the fact that is is needlessly split between 9 different
Maven modules. Would anybody be opposed to combining modules and reducing
the number down to 2? I experimented with this idea in my GitHub
"rollarcus" project here:
http://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/rollarcus_9_to_2 and it worked
nicely.
- Dave
Re: Roller module refactoring
Posted by Edd Grant <ed...@eddgrant.com>.
Sounds eminently sensible to me
On 6 Apr 2013 22:19, "Matt Raible" <ma...@raibledesigns.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Apr 6, 2013, at 14:43, Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One thing that makes it really irritating to deal with (and maintain) the
> > Roller code is the fact that is is needlessly split between 9 different
> > Maven modules. Would anybody be opposed to combining modules and reducing
> > the number down to 2? I experimented with this idea in my GitHub
> > "rollarcus" project here:
> > http://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/rollarcus_9_to_2 and it worked
> > nicely.
> >
> > - Dave
>
Re: Roller module refactoring
Posted by Matt Raible <ma...@raibledesigns.com>.
+1
On Apr 6, 2013, at 14:43, Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that makes it really irritating to deal with (and maintain) the
> Roller code is the fact that is is needlessly split between 9 different
> Maven modules. Would anybody be opposed to combining modules and reducing
> the number down to 2? I experimented with this idea in my GitHub
> "rollarcus" project here:
> http://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/rollarcus_9_to_2 and it worked
> nicely.
>
> - Dave
Re: Roller module refactoring
Posted by shelan Perera <sh...@gmail.com>.
+1. I think new approach is more cleaner and seems to be less confusing too.
Thanks
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Greg Huber <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> more the packages == more the eye strain
>
>
> On 6 April 2013 21:43, Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One thing that makes it really irritating to deal with (and maintain) the
> > Roller code is the fact that is is needlessly split between 9 different
> > Maven modules. Would anybody be opposed to combining modules and reducing
> > the number down to 2? I experimented with this idea in my GitHub
> > "rollarcus" project here:
> > http://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/rollarcus_9_to_2 and it worked
> > nicely.
> >
> > - Dave
> >
>
--
Shelan Perera
Home: http://www.shelan.org
Blog : http:// <http://www.shelanlk.com>blog.shelan.org
Twitter: shelan
skype :shelan.perera
gtalk :shelanrc
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
*invictus*
Re: Roller module refactoring
Posted by Greg Huber <gr...@gmail.com>.
more the packages == more the eye strain
On 6 April 2013 21:43, Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that makes it really irritating to deal with (and maintain) the
> Roller code is the fact that is is needlessly split between 9 different
> Maven modules. Would anybody be opposed to combining modules and reducing
> the number down to 2? I experimented with this idea in my GitHub
> "rollarcus" project here:
> http://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/rollarcus_9_to_2 and it worked
> nicely.
>
> - Dave
>
Re: Roller module refactoring
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good. I think it would be preferable if you can check in your
changes in smaller working increments instead of all-at-once (assuming
it would take a while to get all the simplifications in) as that would
allow us to make software changes while you're doing the simplifying and
ensure that the Roller checkout always remains buildable and deployable
during the process. However, if you need a complete check-in freeze for
a period of time from the rest of the team just let us know.
Note you may wish to keep a separate weblogger-jar and weblogger-war
submodules if in the future you're expecting a third weblogger-osgi
submodule (which would include weblogger-jar but not the weblogger-war
stuff), or if you're seeing a potential need for separate
weblogger-weblogic, weblogger-websphere, etc., submodules that will
contain container-specific configuration.
But either way is fine with me.
Glen
On 04/06/2013 04:43 PM, Dave wrote:
> One thing that makes it really irritating to deal with (and maintain) the
> Roller code is the fact that is is needlessly split between 9 different
> Maven modules. Would anybody be opposed to combining modules and reducing
> the number down to 2? I experimented with this idea in my GitHub
> "rollarcus" project here:
> http://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/rollarcus_9_to_2 and it worked
> nicely.
>
> - Dave
>