[TDK] Usage

[Jason van Zyl <jv...@zenplex.com>]

Hi,

I've been cleaning up the TDK for the last day and I wanted to ask a few
questions about usage and see what kind of response I get.

To date the mode most commonly used in the TDK is to have the project
generated within the servlet container. I believe this is easy to get
started but is generally impractical for developing projects.

There has long been available a mode where a 'cvs layout' is produced
that looks something like what scarab does. It's exploits the
${applicationRoot} variable to allow a Turbine project to be run from
its 'cvs layout' location directly. This method isn't perfect,
especially when URLs are used to retrieve resources - in this case some
content must still be copied into the servlet container. But at any rate
I think we should settle on the one mode and run with it. I believe the
'cvs layout' mode is more viable in the long run.

I was also thinking of adding an option where the TDK project generation
process would obey a ${container.home} setting if someone wanted to use
an already installed servlet container. We could still include a default
servlet container but people could use what they have if they wish.

Thoughts?


-- 
jvz.

Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@apache.org

http://tambora.zenplex.org


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [TDK] Usage

[Jason van Zyl <jv...@zenplex.com>]

On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 11:03, Kurt Schrader wrote:
> 
> On 13 Mar 2002, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> 
> > There has long been available a mode where a 'cvs layout' is produced
> > that looks something like what scarab does. It's exploits the
> > ${applicationRoot} variable to allow a Turbine project to be run from
> > its 'cvs layout' location directly. This method isn't perfect,
> > especially when URLs are used to retrieve resources - in this case some
> > content must still be copied into the servlet container. But at any rate
> > I think we should settle on the one mode and run with it. I believe the
> > 'cvs layout' mode is more viable in the long run.
> 
> +1 for 3.0 TDK.
> -0 for 2.2 TDK, I think that people need to be able to upgrade their 2.1
> applications easily, and that currently there are already enough changes
> that have to be made to projects that just want to upgrade, without making
> them change this too.

They are just going to have to do the same thing if they move to 3.0.
What if there was something to move them forward?
 
I was never expecting to have to maintain the process for development
but it has happened and people use the TDK. But resources are limited
and I'm not interested in supporting both the modes.

> -Kurt
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

-- 
jvz.

Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@apache.org

http://tambora.zenplex.org


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [TDK] Usage

[Kurt Schrader <ks...@engin.umich.edu>]

On 13 Mar 2002, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> There has long been available a mode where a 'cvs layout' is produced
> that looks something like what scarab does. It's exploits the
> ${applicationRoot} variable to allow a Turbine project to be run from
> its 'cvs layout' location directly. This method isn't perfect,
> especially when URLs are used to retrieve resources - in this case some
> content must still be copied into the servlet container. But at any rate
> I think we should settle on the one mode and run with it. I believe the
> 'cvs layout' mode is more viable in the long run.

+1 for 3.0 TDK.
-0 for 2.2 TDK, I think that people need to be able to upgrade their 2.1
applications easily, and that currently there are already enough changes
that have to be made to projects that just want to upgrade, without making
them change this too.

> I was also thinking of adding an option where the TDK project generation
> process would obey a ${container.home} setting if someone wanted to use
> an already installed servlet container. We could still include a default
> servlet container but people could use what they have if they wish.

+1
The only problem that I can think of is that when I move a Turbine 2.1
application from Tomcat 4.x to Tomcat 3.3.x I have to change where it
looks for servlet.jar when it compiles (/common/lib to /lib/common) or
else it dies.  We'd have to handle that problem gracefully if we added
this option.

-Kurt


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>