You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@roller.apache.org by Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> on 2006/08/14 22:36:52 UTC
Proposal: New distribution layout
we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
pulling this into an actual proposal ...
http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
that the download isn't just the webapp.
-- Allen
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com>.
On 8/30/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
> yeah, i have just a few little things left on my list that we need for
> 3.0 ...
>
> 1. a UI control for weblog.pagemodels attribute.
Done. I added a field to the Weblog Settings page, only visible to
Global Admins.
> 2. add a db index on weblogentry.locale
>
> 3. we need a way to set weblogentry.locale = website.locale as part of
> the upgrade process. i did this using pure sql for our upgrade, but the
> sql would not be the same for all dbs, so that's an issue. technically
> we don't have to do this for the app to work since a null locale is
> still fine, but i think this is much better than leaving it null.
OK. So an RC is probably not going to happen today.
- Dave
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com>.
Dave Johnson wrote:
> I'm going to run though an install or two today with the new distro
> layout, update the install guide and next try to get a release
> candidate ready.
>
> Allen: anything else you want to wrap up before RC?
yeah, i have just a few little things left on my list that we need for
3.0 ...
1. a UI control for weblog.pagemodels attribute.
2. add a db index on weblogentry.locale
3. we need a way to set weblogentry.locale = website.locale as part of
the upgrade process. i did this using pure sql for our upgrade, but the
sql would not be the same for all dbs, so that's an issue. technically
we don't have to do this for the app to work since a null locale is
still fine, but i think this is much better than leaving it null.
i think that's it.
-- Allen
>
> Elias: what's the ETA on your SSO mods?
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> On 8/30/06, Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like "apache-roller"
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/29/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
>> > k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now.
>> >
>> > i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything
>> appears
>> > to be broken.
>> >
>> > one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final
>> > release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front
>> > of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary
>> and it
>> > should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just
>> makes
>> > the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ...
>> >
>> > apache-roller-$version
>> > apache-roller-src-$version
>> >
>> > -- Allen
>> >
>> >
>> > Allen Gilliland wrote:
>> > > I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
>> > > implementing it for the 3.0 release.
>> > >
>> > > Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
>> > > namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
>> > > where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
>> > >
>> > > -- Allen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Anil Gangolli wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and
>> > >> "binary" distributions.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
>> > >> <al...@sun.com>
>> > >> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
>> > >> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> Good point. comments inline ...
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being
>> combined
>> > >>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
>> > >>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we
>> > >>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does
>> in SVN
>> > >>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web",
>> > >>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below
>> it.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> yes, that definitely makes sense.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not
>> include
>> > >>>> the binary(?)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
>> > >>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes
>> sense
>> > >>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are
>> > >>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp"
>> > >>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source
>> > >>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain
>> > >>> everything needed to build the war, including libs.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> would that work?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -- Allen
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> --a.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson"
>> <sn...@gmail.com>
>> > >>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
>> > >>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>> > >>>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>> > >>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got
>> around to
>> > >>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>>
>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the
>> > >>>>>> distribution > so
>> > >>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>> > -- Allen
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
Re: Acegi Security Question for Matt Raible
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
On 9/11/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> This is ALMOST exactly what I was looking for, except it made me realize
> something: auto-provisioning needs to be done inside the Acegi plugins
> and not in RollerSession because the Acegi filter is the first to
> execute and it's not getting the initial admin/editor role is looking
> for to allow a user to proceed with an authenticated action.
>
> Any suggestions? Is it safe to access the UserManager inside an Acegi
> plugin? Is there a pre-filter we can configure? I'm just thinking outloud.
I can't answer these questions, but you could probably do some
filter-reordering (and possibly create a new one) to make this
possible. You might also take a look at what Acegi has for SSO
solutions - maybe there's some re-usable ideas there.
Matt
>
> -Elias
>
> Matt Raible wrote:
> > On 9/11/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
> >> Matt,
> >>
> >> I think you probably missed this question since it was bundled up in
> >> another email with a non-obvious subject, but I think this one should be
> >> clear :)
> >>
> >> -Elias
> >>
> >> Elias Torres wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> > Matt,
> >> >
> >> > I have one thing left to fix. In auto-provision mode, if a user has
> >> > authenticated via SSO (LDAP), the only role they have is "register", so
> >> > they can access the New Registration page. So, in RollerSession is
> >> > UserData is null, I call AutoProvisionHelper to try to register the
> >> > user. It works great, except that Acegi Security still believes the
> >> > Authentication only has roles "register" and not "editor,[admin]". I
> >> see
> >> > in SecurityContextHolder you can set Authentication, but I'm not sure
> >> > how to proceed. Any suggestions?
> >
> > Here's an example of how to set authentication programmatically:
> >
> > // log user in automatically
> > Authentication auth = new
> > UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken(user.getUsername(),
> > user.getConfirmPassword());
> > try {
> > ApplicationContext ctx =
> >
> > WebApplicationContextUtils.getWebApplicationContext(request.getSession().getServletContext());
> >
> > if (ctx != null) {
> > ProviderManager authenticationManager =
> > (ProviderManager) ctx.getBean("authenticationManager");
> >
> > SecurityContextHolder.getContext().setAuthentication(authenticationManager.doAuthentication(auth));
> >
> > }
> > } catch (NoSuchBeanDefinitionException n) {
> > // ignore, should only happen when testing
> > }
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >> >
> >> > -Elias
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Acegi Security Question for Matt Raible
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
Matt,
This is ALMOST exactly what I was looking for, except it made me realize
something: auto-provisioning needs to be done inside the Acegi plugins
and not in RollerSession because the Acegi filter is the first to
execute and it's not getting the initial admin/editor role is looking
for to allow a user to proceed with an authenticated action.
Any suggestions? Is it safe to access the UserManager inside an Acegi
plugin? Is there a pre-filter we can configure? I'm just thinking outloud.
-Elias
Matt Raible wrote:
> On 9/11/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> I think you probably missed this question since it was bundled up in
>> another email with a non-obvious subject, but I think this one should be
>> clear :)
>>
>> -Elias
>>
>> Elias Torres wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Matt,
>> >
>> > I have one thing left to fix. In auto-provision mode, if a user has
>> > authenticated via SSO (LDAP), the only role they have is "register", so
>> > they can access the New Registration page. So, in RollerSession is
>> > UserData is null, I call AutoProvisionHelper to try to register the
>> > user. It works great, except that Acegi Security still believes the
>> > Authentication only has roles "register" and not "editor,[admin]". I
>> see
>> > in SecurityContextHolder you can set Authentication, but I'm not sure
>> > how to proceed. Any suggestions?
>
> Here's an example of how to set authentication programmatically:
>
> // log user in automatically
> Authentication auth = new
> UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken(user.getUsername(),
> user.getConfirmPassword());
> try {
> ApplicationContext ctx =
>
> WebApplicationContextUtils.getWebApplicationContext(request.getSession().getServletContext());
>
> if (ctx != null) {
> ProviderManager authenticationManager =
> (ProviderManager) ctx.getBean("authenticationManager");
>
> SecurityContextHolder.getContext().setAuthentication(authenticationManager.doAuthentication(auth));
>
> }
> } catch (NoSuchBeanDefinitionException n) {
> // ignore, should only happen when testing
> }
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Matt
>
>> >
>> > -Elias
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: Acegi Security Question for Matt Raible (was: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout)
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
On 9/11/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I think you probably missed this question since it was bundled up in
> another email with a non-obvious subject, but I think this one should be
> clear :)
>
> -Elias
>
> Elias Torres wrote:
> [snip]
> > Matt,
> >
> > I have one thing left to fix. In auto-provision mode, if a user has
> > authenticated via SSO (LDAP), the only role they have is "register", so
> > they can access the New Registration page. So, in RollerSession is
> > UserData is null, I call AutoProvisionHelper to try to register the
> > user. It works great, except that Acegi Security still believes the
> > Authentication only has roles "register" and not "editor,[admin]". I see
> > in SecurityContextHolder you can set Authentication, but I'm not sure
> > how to proceed. Any suggestions?
Here's an example of how to set authentication programmatically:
// log user in automatically
Authentication auth = new
UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken(user.getUsername(),
user.getConfirmPassword());
try {
ApplicationContext ctx =
WebApplicationContextUtils.getWebApplicationContext(request.getSession().getServletContext());
if (ctx != null) {
ProviderManager authenticationManager =
(ProviderManager) ctx.getBean("authenticationManager");
SecurityContextHolder.getContext().setAuthentication(authenticationManager.doAuthentication(auth));
}
} catch (NoSuchBeanDefinitionException n) {
// ignore, should only happen when testing
}
Hope this helps,
Matt
> >
> > -Elias
> >
>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
Allen Gilliland wrote:
>
>
> Elias Torres wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> I've committed all of my changes including a base auto-provision feature.
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=438595
>
> this didn't go through the normal proposal process which is fine in this
> case, but i'd like to raise a couple minor concerns which i think are
> worth addressing ...
We were going to work on the proposal [1] but I guess David wanted this
done much quicker because of the RC release. I sent several emails on
the issue but I didn't hear any objections so I committed the code, on
the contrary, we have many interested on the new features.
[1]
http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_SingleSignOnOption
>
> 1. I think it would be more fitting to move the contents of
> AutoProvisioningHelper a little bit. I think the check for if
> auto-provisioning is enabled should lie in the code segment that was
> added to RollerSession and the retrieval of the AutoProvision instance
> should come from RollerContext, i.e. ...
>
> // try one time to auto-provision, only happens if user==null
> // which means installation has SSO-enabled in security.xml
> if(user == null &&
> RollerConfig.getBooleanProperty("users.sso.autoProvision.enabled")) {
>
> // provisioning enabled, get provisioner and execute
> AutoProvision provisioner = RollerContext.getAutoProvision();
> boolean userProvisioned = provisioner.execute();
> if(userProvisioned) {
> // try lookup again real quick
> user = umgr.getUserByUserName(principal.getName());
> }
> }
Much cleaner than what I did. I've checked it in.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=438727
>
>
> 2. The way getUserDetailsFromAuthentication() method works in
> CustomUserRegistry seems limiting since to support a new type of
> UserDetails would require modifying that class. I'm not sure exactly
> how the appropriate implementation of UserDetails is chosen and
> instantiated, presumably by Acegi somehow, but I think that we need to
> force the use of a common interface like the RollerUserDetails interface
> by all integrating providers. i.e. maybe when we cast the principal
> that we get from Acegi we need to force the use of RollerUserPrincipals?
>
> Object oPrincipal = authentication.getPrincipal();
> if (!(oPrincipal instanceof RollerUserDetails)) {
> log.warn("Unsupported Principal type in Authentication. Skipping
> auto-registration.");
> return null;
> }
>
> can we do both of those?
>
> -- Allen
>
The code you pasted is not the code I committed. The code I committed is
as follows:
Object oPrincipal = authentication.getPrincipal();
...
if (!(oPrincipal instanceof UserDetails)) { // ##1
log.warn("Unsupported Principal...");
return null;
}
UserDetails userDetails = (UserDetails) oPrincipal;
...
if(userDetails instanceof RollerUserDetails) { // ##2
RollerUserDetails rollerDetails = (RollerUserDetails) userDetails;
...
} else if(userDetails instanceof LdapUserDetails) { // ##3
LdapUserDetails ldapDetails = (LdapUserDetails) userDetails;
...
}
##1 UserDetails is the base interface in Acegi Security to provide user
information. All UserDetailService implementation must return an object
of that interface. If not, we throw an unsupported warning and return
null, not likely to happen. Then (in ...) I'd get the basic user
information that applies to all UserDetail implementations and covers
80% of the information needed to register a new User.
##2 Here's where we support extra information. Let's say that someone
wanted to store specific information like timezone, locale in a custom
directory (not supported by Acegi Security) for Roller, then they would
have to implement their own UserDetailService and return something of
base type UserDetail and that it extends RollerUserDetails.
RollerUserDetails has all of the necessary required information for
UserData.
##3 It's the case for when they have an LDAP directory and they want to
get email and name from LDAP but have still the option to customize the
attributes.
I wouldn't want to force RollerUserDetails always because then either us
or our users would have to reimplement more from Acegi Security. The way
it is doesn't require any code for most cases, but if you want your own
custom implementation I don't think this class needs to be changed
anyways. At least that's what I had in mind.
-Elias
-Elias
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com>.
Elias Torres wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I've committed all of my changes including a base auto-provision feature.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=438595
this didn't go through the normal proposal process which is fine in this
case, but i'd like to raise a couple minor concerns which i think are
worth addressing ...
1. I think it would be more fitting to move the contents of
AutoProvisioningHelper a little bit. I think the check for if
auto-provisioning is enabled should lie in the code segment that was
added to RollerSession and the retrieval of the AutoProvision instance
should come from RollerContext, i.e. ...
// try one time to auto-provision, only happens if user==null
// which means installation has SSO-enabled in security.xml
if(user == null &&
RollerConfig.getBooleanProperty("users.sso.autoProvision.enabled")) {
// provisioning enabled, get provisioner and execute
AutoProvision provisioner = RollerContext.getAutoProvision();
boolean userProvisioned = provisioner.execute();
if(userProvisioned) {
// try lookup again real quick
user = umgr.getUserByUserName(principal.getName());
}
}
2. The way getUserDetailsFromAuthentication() method works in
CustomUserRegistry seems limiting since to support a new type of
UserDetails would require modifying that class. I'm not sure exactly
how the appropriate implementation of UserDetails is chosen and
instantiated, presumably by Acegi somehow, but I think that we need to
force the use of a common interface like the RollerUserDetails interface
by all integrating providers. i.e. maybe when we cast the principal
that we get from Acegi we need to force the use of RollerUserPrincipals?
Object oPrincipal = authentication.getPrincipal();
if (!(oPrincipal instanceof RollerUserDetails)) {
log.warn("Unsupported Principal type in Authentication. Skipping
auto-registration.");
return null;
}
can we do both of those?
-- Allen
>
> Matt,
>
> I have one thing left to fix. In auto-provision mode, if a user has
> authenticated via SSO (LDAP), the only role they have is "register", so
> they can access the New Registration page. So, in RollerSession is
> UserData is null, I call AutoProvisionHelper to try to register the
> user. It works great, except that Acegi Security still believes the
> Authentication only has roles "register" and not "editor,[admin]". I see
> in SecurityContextHolder you can set Authentication, but I'm not sure
> how to proceed. Any suggestions?
>
> -Elias
>
> Dave Johnson wrote:
>> I'm going to run though an install or two today with the new distro
>> layout, update the install guide and next try to get a release
>> candidate ready.
>>
>> Allen: anything else you want to wrap up before RC?
>>
>> Elias: what's the ETA on your SSO mods?
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/06, Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I like "apache-roller"
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/29/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>> k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now.
>>>>
>>>> i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything
>>> appears
>>>> to be broken.
>>>>
>>>> one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final
>>>> release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front
>>>> of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary
>>> and it
>>>> should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just
>>> makes
>>>> the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ...
>>>>
>>>> apache-roller-$version
>>>> apache-roller-src-$version
>>>>
>>>> -- Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>>> I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
>>>>> implementing it for the 3.0 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
>>>>> namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
>>>>> where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Allen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>>>>> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and
>>>>>> "binary" distributions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
>>>>>> <al...@sun.com>
>>>>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good point. comments inline ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>>>>>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being
>>> combined
>>>>>>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
>>>>>>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we
>>>>>>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does
>>> in SVN
>>>>>>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web",
>>>>>>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below
>>> it.
>>>>>>> yes, that definitely makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not
>>> include
>>>>>>>> the binary(?)
>>>>>>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
>>>>>>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes
>>> sense
>>>>>>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are
>>>>>>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages?
>>>>>>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp"
>>>>>>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source
>>>>>>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain
>>>>>>> everything needed to build the war, including libs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would that work?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Allen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --a.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson"
>>> <sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> we talked about this a while back and I've just now got
>>> around to
>>>>>>>>>>> pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the
>>>>>>>>>> distribution > so
>>>>>>>>>>> that the download isn't just the webapp.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Allen
>>>>>>>>>>>
Acegi Security Question for Matt Raible (was: Re: Proposal: New distribution
layout)
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
Matt,
I think you probably missed this question since it was bundled up in
another email with a non-obvious subject, but I think this one should be
clear :)
-Elias
Elias Torres wrote:
[snip]
> Matt,
>
> I have one thing left to fix. In auto-provision mode, if a user has
> authenticated via SSO (LDAP), the only role they have is "register", so
> they can access the New Registration page. So, in RollerSession is
> UserData is null, I call AutoProvisionHelper to try to register the
> user. It works great, except that Acegi Security still believes the
> Authentication only has roles "register" and not "editor,[admin]". I see
> in SecurityContextHolder you can set Authentication, but I'm not sure
> how to proceed. Any suggestions?
>
> -Elias
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
Dave,
I've committed all of my changes including a base auto-provision feature.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=438595
Matt,
I have one thing left to fix. In auto-provision mode, if a user has
authenticated via SSO (LDAP), the only role they have is "register", so
they can access the New Registration page. So, in RollerSession is
UserData is null, I call AutoProvisionHelper to try to register the
user. It works great, except that Acegi Security still believes the
Authentication only has roles "register" and not "editor,[admin]". I see
in SecurityContextHolder you can set Authentication, but I'm not sure
how to proceed. Any suggestions?
-Elias
Dave Johnson wrote:
> I'm going to run though an install or two today with the new distro
> layout, update the install guide and next try to get a release
> candidate ready.
>
> Allen: anything else you want to wrap up before RC?
>
> Elias: what's the ETA on your SSO mods?
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> On 8/30/06, Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like "apache-roller"
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/29/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
>> > k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now.
>> >
>> > i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything
>> appears
>> > to be broken.
>> >
>> > one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final
>> > release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front
>> > of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary
>> and it
>> > should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just
>> makes
>> > the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ...
>> >
>> > apache-roller-$version
>> > apache-roller-src-$version
>> >
>> > -- Allen
>> >
>> >
>> > Allen Gilliland wrote:
>> > > I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
>> > > implementing it for the 3.0 release.
>> > >
>> > > Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
>> > > namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
>> > > where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
>> > >
>> > > -- Allen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Anil Gangolli wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and
>> > >> "binary" distributions.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
>> > >> <al...@sun.com>
>> > >> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
>> > >> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> Good point. comments inline ...
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being
>> combined
>> > >>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
>> > >>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we
>> > >>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does
>> in SVN
>> > >>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web",
>> > >>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below
>> it.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> yes, that definitely makes sense.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not
>> include
>> > >>>> the binary(?)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
>> > >>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes
>> sense
>> > >>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are
>> > >>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp"
>> > >>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source
>> > >>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain
>> > >>> everything needed to build the war, including libs.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> would that work?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -- Allen
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> --a.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson"
>> <sn...@gmail.com>
>> > >>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
>> > >>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>> > >>>>>> +1
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>> > >>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got
>> around to
>> > >>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>>
>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the
>> > >>>>>> distribution > so
>> > >>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>> > -- Allen
>> > >>>>>> >
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com>.
I'm going to run though an install or two today with the new distro
layout, update the install guide and next try to get a release
candidate ready.
Allen: anything else you want to wrap up before RC?
Elias: what's the ETA on your SSO mods?
- Dave
On 8/30/06, Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like "apache-roller"
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> On 8/29/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
> > k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now.
> >
> > i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything appears
> > to be broken.
> >
> > one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final
> > release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front
> > of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary and it
> > should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just makes
> > the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ...
> >
> > apache-roller-$version
> > apache-roller-src-$version
> >
> > -- Allen
> >
> >
> > Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > > I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
> > > implementing it for the 3.0 release.
> > >
> > > Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
> > > namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
> > > where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
> > >
> > > -- Allen
> > >
> > >
> > > Anil Gangolli wrote:
> > >>
> > >> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and
> > >> "binary" distributions.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
> > >> <al...@sun.com>
> > >> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Good point. comments inline ...
> > >>>
> > >>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined
> > >>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
> > >>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we
> > >>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN
> > >>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web",
> > >>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below it.
> > >>>
> > >>> yes, that definitely makes sense.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include
> > >>>> the binary(?)
> > >>>
> > >>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
> > >>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense
> > >>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are
> > >>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages?
> > >>>
> > >>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp"
> > >>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source
> > >>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain
> > >>> everything needed to build the war, including libs.
> > >>>
> > >>> would that work?
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Allen
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --a.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <sn...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
> > >>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > >>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
> > >>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the
> > >>>>>> distribution > so
> > >>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> > -- Allen
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com>.
I like "apache-roller"
- Dave
On 8/29/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
> k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now.
>
> i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything appears
> to be broken.
>
> one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final
> release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front
> of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary and it
> should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just makes
> the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ...
>
> apache-roller-$version
> apache-roller-src-$version
>
> -- Allen
>
>
> Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
> > implementing it for the 3.0 release.
> >
> > Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
> > namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
> > where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
> >
> > -- Allen
> >
> >
> > Anil Gangolli wrote:
> >>
> >> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and
> >> "binary" distributions.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
> >> <al...@sun.com>
> >> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
> >>
> >>
> >>> Good point. comments inline ...
> >>>
> >>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined
> >>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions.
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
> >>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we
> >>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN
> >>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web",
> >>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below it.
> >>>
> >>> yes, that definitely makes sense.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include
> >>>> the binary(?)
> >>>
> >>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
> >>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense
> >>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are
> >>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages?
> >>>
> >>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp"
> >>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source
> >>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain
> >>> everything needed to build the war, including libs.
> >>>
> >>> would that work?
> >>>
> >>> -- Allen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --a.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <sn...@gmail.com>
> >>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
> >>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
> >>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the
> >>>>>> distribution > so
> >>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > -- Allen
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com>.
k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now.
i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything appears
to be broken.
one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final
release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front
of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary and it
should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just makes
the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ...
apache-roller-$version
apache-roller-src-$version
-- Allen
Allen Gilliland wrote:
> I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
> implementing it for the 3.0 release.
>
> Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
> namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
> where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
>
> -- Allen
>
>
> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>
>> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and
>> "binary" distributions.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
>> <al...@sun.com>
>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>>
>>
>>> Good point. comments inline ...
>>>
>>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined
>>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions.
>>>>
>>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
>>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we
>>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN
>>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web",
>>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below it.
>>>
>>> yes, that definitely makes sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include
>>>> the binary(?)
>>>
>>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
>>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense
>>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are
>>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages?
>>>
>>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp"
>>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source
>>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain
>>> everything needed to build the war, including libs.
>>>
>>> would that work?
>>>
>>> -- Allen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --a.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
>>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the
>>>>>> distribution > so
>>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -- Allen
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 8/26/06, Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
> > I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
> > implementing it for the 3.0 release.
> >
> > Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
> > namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
> > where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
>
> +1
>
> - Dave
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com>.
On 8/25/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
> I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
> implementing it for the 3.0 release.
>
> Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
> namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
> where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
+1
- Dave
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com>.
I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with
implementing it for the 3.0 release.
Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way,
namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases
where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive?
-- Allen
Anil Gangolli wrote:
>
> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and
> "binary" distributions.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
> <al...@sun.com>
> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>
>
>> Good point. comments inline ...
>>
>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>>
>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined
>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions.
>>>
>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we expect
>>> it to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN which
>>> itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web", "tools",
>>> build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below it.
>>
>> yes, that definitely makes sense.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include
>>> the binary(?)
>>
>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense
>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are
>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages?
>>
>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp"
>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source
>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain
>> everything needed to build the war, including libs.
>>
>> would that work?
>>
>> -- Allen
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --a.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <sn...@gmail.com>
>>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>>>
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the
>>>>> distribution > so
>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -- Allen
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Anil Gangolli <an...@busybuddha.org>.
That works. I think that means basically separating the source and "binary"
distributions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Gilliland" <al...@sun.com>
To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
> Good point. comments inline ...
>
> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>
>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined in,
>> and I had a couple of comments/questions.
>>
>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we expect it
>> to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN which itself
>> contains several directories and files (e.g. "web", "tools", build.xml)
>> as well as the actual "src" directory below it.
>
> yes, that definitely makes sense.
>
>
>>
>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include the
>> binary(?)
>
> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense to me
> that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
>
>
>>
>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are under
>> the "tools" in such combined packages?
>
> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp" directory
> and include a "sources" directory in the source distribution. in that
> case the "sources" directory would contain everything needed to build the
> war, including libs.
>
> would that work?
>
> -- Allen
>
>
>>
>> --a.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <sn...@gmail.com>
>> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>>
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>>>> >
>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution
>>>> > so
>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
>>>> >
>>>> > -- Allen
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com>.
Good point. comments inline ...
Anil Gangolli wrote:
>
> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined in,
> and I had a couple of comments/questions.
>
> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we expect it
> to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN which itself
> contains several directories and files (e.g. "web", "tools", build.xml)
> as well as the actual "src" directory below it.
yes, that definitely makes sense.
>
> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include the
> binary(?)
what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense to
me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
>
> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are under
> the "tools" in such combined packages?
seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp" directory
and include a "sources" directory in the source distribution. in that
case the "sources" directory would contain everything needed to build
the war, including libs.
would that work?
-- Allen
>
> --a.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <sn...@gmail.com>
> To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
>
>
>> +1
>>
>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>>>
>>> >
>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
>>> >
>>> > -- Allen
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Anil Gangolli <an...@busybuddha.org>.
Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined in, and
I had a couple of comments/questions.
(1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree something
other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we expect it to look like
the top of the roller source tree does in SVN which itself contains several
directories and files (e.g. "web", "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual
"src" directory below it.
(2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include the
binary(?)
(3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are under the
"tools" in such combined packages?
--a.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Johnson" <sn...@gmail.com>
To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
> +1
>
> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>> >
>> > http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>> >
>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
>> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
>> >
>> > -- Allen
>> >
>>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Dave Johnson <sn...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:
> +1
>
> Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
> > pulling this into an actual proposal ...
> >
> > http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
> >
> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
> > that the download isn't just the webapp.
> >
> > -- Allen
> >
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
+1
Allen Gilliland wrote:
> we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
> pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>
> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>
> nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
> that the download isn't just the webapp.
>
> -- Allen
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Anil Gangolli <an...@busybuddha.org>.
+1
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Raible" <mr...@gmail.com>
To: <ro...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
> +1 Fine by me since I rarely use the distros and tend to checkout from
> SVN.
>
> Matt
>
> On 8/14/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
>> we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
>> pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>>
>> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>>
>> nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
>> that the download isn't just the webapp.
>>
>> -- Allen
>>
>
Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
+1 Fine by me since I rarely use the distros and tend to checkout from SVN.
Matt
On 8/14/06, Allen Gilliland <al...@sun.com> wrote:
> we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
> pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>
> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>
> nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
> that the download isn't just the webapp.
>
> -- Allen
>