Spindle [was; Tapestry stuff]
niclas at hedhman.org
Sat Jan 15 15:11:33 EST 2005
On Saturday 15 January 2005 15:06, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Some discussion about the hangman example. Remember that eventually all
> this will be useful for documenting the project. :-)
> First topic: Spindle
> I really don't want to go there.
Well, that is pretty simple choice :o)
> My major concern right now is putting together a productive environment.
> One of the promises of Tapestry is SoC, where HTML designers can work
> independently of the developers.
> My environment is Eclipse. When we eventually hire employees for this
> project (if I can get the funding together), we will be using Eclipse. I
> very much suspect that many other people use Eclipse for their development
> as well. I think that you and Steve are in the minority of people who don't
> use IDEs.
IMHO, this is irrelevant, and let's not confuse what we are talking about.
> Also, one of Tapestry's selling points is that the project Spindle exists.
> So, I think it would be a great loss to not support it.
Let's also keep in mind the day in the future when the next so called
incompatible project comes along. What happens when an IDEA plugin for
Tapestry exist which is not compatible with Spindle?
> The question is, how?
I pass this question to Peter and his gang. They are normally pretty good in
getting going in Eclipse, without requiring belts, suspenders and crawbars.
My counter question is; Isn't there a problem with the L&F design team as
well? Are they integrated into the process, or copy by diskette or mail is
the preferred method of collaboration?
> I guess all I can suggest at this point is to use their layout as a first
> step, then during the build copy over the files to a more Metro-type
> layout. This adds an extra layer to the process, but it doesn't force
> anybody to do anything. People who don't want to use Spindle can directly
> use the Metro layout. People who do want to use Spindle can just add this
> extra step when preparing for the build.
> Does this sound like the right way to go?
No, not to me. I have not seen Spindle in action so I can't say for sure, but
you claim is that Spindle demands a project layout that Magic doesn't like.
The reason for Magic not liking 'any layout' is not technical, it is an
productivity, support and documentation issue. It is about people who are
unable to communicate if too many indirections are involved.
Ex; "When Magic copies the files from
ioer/weioh/wajsdf/wfjkhw/weflhwefs/ksfhke/ to the
ljksfd/sdfjskdfj/sdfjl/wfjkhw/weflhwefs/ the filter mechanism doesn't work. I
get X when I should get Y. What am I doing wrong?"
Instead of a simple answer, one have to start deciphering the meaning of all
these paths, and how they are mapped in Magic, possibly with conflicting
parameters in various places. If such feature (free project layout) is
provided, it will be bikeshedding on a massive scale, everyone think that
they can do it better than the previous guy, and community efficiency (mine
included) will suffer.
The only remotely possible way to go is to allow more than one layout, but a
small finite number, so it is apparent which one is in progress.
Unlike you, I don't like massively long emails, so the rest is processed
More information about the dev-dpml