[ClickClick] Small improvements.

[Ahmed Mohombe]

Hi,

Please change the webapp directory from
[jquery-examples] and
[mootools-examples]
from the actual "WebContent" to the more standard "webapp" (and also uniform
with the rest of the webapps examples).

Also regarding the ANT build:
there's no need to have (and maintain) 6 build.xml files
for each subdirectory: one in the root directory would be more enough.

IMHO a single "documentation" directory would be also enough (the same
way Click does).

Thanks in advance,

Ahmed.
P.S. If you wish I could make this weekend the above changes myself.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Click-development mailing list
Click-development@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/click-development

[sabob]

Hi Ahmed,

Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
>
> Please change the webapp directory from
> [jquery-examples] and
> [mootools-examples]
> from the actual "WebContent" to the more standard "webapp" (and also uniform
> with the rest of the webapps examples).

Agreed.

>
> Also regarding the ANT build:
> there's no need to have (and maintain) 6 build.xml files
> for each subdirectory: one in the root directory would be more enough.

My thinking here is that there might be many more projects added by
the community e.g. EXT, YUI, Google stuff etc.

Not sure if a single build.xml will work so well. If you only want
Core+JQuery it will mean having to checkout and build all projects.
Another problem that can crop up is if a subproject breaks the build.
Then whoever wants to build a project needs to fix the build.

What do you think?

>
> IMHO a single "documentation" directory would be also enough (the same
> way Click does).

I plan to add docs to the wiki, not sure if I will have energy to
maintain offline docs as well. Guess it depends on the demand.

>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ahmed.
> P.S. If you wish I could make this weekend the above changes myself.

Thanks! Can you send me your gmail account and I can add you as an admin.

kind regards

bob

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Click-development mailing list
Click-development@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/click-development

[Ahmed Mohombe]

>> Also regarding the ANT build:
>> there's no need to have (and maintain) 6 build.xml files
>> for each subdirectory: one in the root directory would be more enough.
>
> My thinking here is that there might be many more projects added by
> the community e.g. EXT, YUI, Google stuff etc.
>
> Not sure if a single build.xml will work so well. If you only want
> Core+JQuery it will mean having to checkout and build all projects.
> Another problem that can crop up is if a subproject breaks the build.
> Then whoever wants to build a project needs to fix the build.
>
> What do you think?

IMHO ANT supports macros now, and it would be very simple to support
as many new "modules" as possible, if all respect the same project structure convention.
Also there wouldn't be much to checkout (even if all modules would be tried),
since the JARS would come with the 'get-deps' task, so it would be much simpler
for new uses to checkout from the root everything.

EXT was very nice (and I already implemented with Click and Struts for a project), but the authors
simply killed the project by changing to worse the license with each version.

Also I don't expect ClickClick to grow too much, since it some set of controls are
very used and liked, than they should be moved back under the Click umbrella, right?

> Can you send me your gmail account and I can add you as an admin.
amohombe AT googlemail DOT com

Ahmed.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Click-development mailing list
Click-development@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/click-development

[sabob]

Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
> IMHO ANT supports macros now, and it would be very simple to support
> as many new "modules" as possible, if all respect the same project structure convention.
> Also there wouldn't be much to checkout (even if all modules would be tried),
> since the JARS would come with the 'get-deps' task, so it would be much simpler
> for new uses to checkout from the root everything.

Alright, lets see how things go with macros.

Can you set it up so that each module builds independently? Thus if
one module fails it won't stop the entire build process.


>
> Also I don't expect ClickClick to grow too much, since it some set of controls are
> very used and liked, than they should be moved back under the Click umbrella, right?

If we all agree I cannot see why not.

>
>> Can you send me your gmail account and I can add you as an admin.
> amohombe AT googlemail DOT com

Done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Click-development mailing list
Click-development@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/click-development

[Ahmed Mohombe]

>> IMHO ANT supports macros now, and it would be very simple to support
>> as many new "modules" as possible, if all respect the same project structure convention.
>> Also there wouldn't be much to checkout (even if all modules would be tried),
>> since the JARS would come with the 'get-deps' task, so it would be much simpler
>> for new uses to checkout from the root everything.
>
> Alright, lets see how things go with macros.
A first rough cut is in SVN:
try:
  - 'get-deps'
  - (download manually the Click 1.5 M2 jars to /lib since they're not in Maven repo yet)
  - 'build-all'

  => in /dist/ there's everything built.
     javadocs are in /documentation/xxxx-api

I also added the version number to the jar file names.

> Can you set it up so that each module builds independently? Thus if
> one module fails it won't stop the entire build process.
This would be possible too, but I did everything together, since they compile
(and IMHO the public sources should always compile).

It should be trivial to group them in a separate way too.

Ahmed.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Click-development mailing list
Click-development@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/click-development