gp vs. gp-simple #2

Open
till opened this Issue Jul 8, 2011 · 10 comments

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@till
Member
till commented Jul 8, 2011

I'd like to propose that the current way gp works, is moved to gp-extended, and that we make gp do the following instead:

  • create directory (package name)
  • only add the following:
    • package.xml
    • src/
    • tests/
    • API-0.1.0
    • RELEASE-0.1.0
    • README
    • CREDITS
    • packagexmlsetup.php
@till till was assigned Jul 8, 2011
@helgi
Member
helgi commented Jul 8, 2011

If we do anything like that then it is a flag on the gp command. No point in polluting the command namespace for something "gp --simple" or "gp --extended" can do.

@till
Member
till commented Jul 8, 2011

That's fine too. I'd just like it to be simple by default.

The majority of people don't need phar, etc.. I also think we should nudge people towards making pyrus packages. And a fallback to PEAR 1.x is optional.

@saltybeagle
Member

The output of this command has been simplified before, but obviously not enough for your taste. I'd be fine with this change though.

If we do add an extended option, it should also include the custom commands and custom role portions that were originally in the command.

@saltybeagle
Member

Right now there's a lot of code that is hardcoded and embedded into other PHP files.

How about converting the skeleton files into a full dir or .tgz file that is un-packed then has some minor string replacements made. This might make it easier to maintain.

@helgi
Member
helgi commented Jul 8, 2011

Templating type of approach? I think that's really the only way going forward given the type of documents we have and will be adding in the next while.

Anything that helps us get away from the 1500+ line classes PEAR suffered from ;-) Also means it is easier to introduce new files and completely different templates (e.g. JSON instead of the plain text or similar non sense)

@saltybeagle
Member

Yeah, that sounds great. It could even be a separate repo on Github. The skeleton generator just clones the skeleton repo. This would be customizable of course, so people could fork and modify for their local app skeletons...?

@saltybeagle
Member

Oh, it would have to be available offline for @cweiske of course. :-D

@helgi
Member
helgi commented Jul 8, 2011

Yeah, people on hand-cranked connections will need to be able to use this

@till
Member
till commented Jul 9, 2011

I think I found the place, so I'm gonna think about writing a test for this command first and then I refactor the hell out of that function.

I'm thinking I just do plain text files and replace over them. No extracting, etc..

@till
Member
till commented Jul 9, 2011

Btw, Christian got DSL now.

Also, people who live in Ireland shouldn't talk about high speed Internet. Cause they have no idea what that's like. ;-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment