Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Well, I thought more about this subject, and I think I'm OK with the following distributions : source : all sources for implementation and samples binary : implementation binaries and dependencies + javadoc + samples binaries \lib - api implementation and dependency \doc - javadocs \samples\sample name - sample ready to run (might have source attached inside jar/war) Would that be OK ? On 5/18/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments in-line On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input. I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make that easy for them? DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source code allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also, could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with source. It's not very useful for the SDO binary distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a little clumsy. As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that supports J2EE applications. I do think it would be good to simplify the set of distribution files to a source and a binary distribution. So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_ distribution would include sample _source_. Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and source distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source We could ship the sample binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user. So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of classpath etc, rather than how to that would require a presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven. Perhaps the binary distributions should include - the sample source - binary samples ready to run - a generic description of how to build the samples - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction son how to get maven going - javadoc for the API Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has sources and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be huge, as we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the samples. However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated. Kelvin. On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS distributed artifacts. We currently have the following distributions : - Source : have das source implementation (M2) - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2) - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source code and derby canned database (M2) - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2) Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like : - Source : DAS source implementation - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples binaries and derby canned database + javadoc My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view. I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the binary distribution. Please, express your thoughts.. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresendehttp://people.apache.org/%7Elresende - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
I have updated the DAS distributions to work as proposed under revision #539815, this should be aligned with the SCA and SDO proposed distributions, the only difference being that, the samples on the binary distribution have source code attached to the binary distributions, instead of having the actual sample sources to build. On 5/19/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I thought more about this subject, and I think I'm OK with the following distributions : source : all sources for implementation and samples binary : implementation binaries and dependencies + javadoc + samples binaries \lib - api implementation and dependency \doc - javadocs \samples\sample name - sample ready to run (might have source attached inside jar/war) Would that be OK ? On 5/18/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments in-line On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input. I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make that easy for them? DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source code allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also, could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with source. It's not very useful for the SDO binary distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a little clumsy. As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that supports J2EE applications. I do think it would be good to simplify the set of distribution files to a source and a binary distribution. So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_ distribution would include sample _source_. Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and source distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source We could ship the sample binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user. So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of classpath etc, rather than how to that would require a presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven. Perhaps the binary distributions should include - the sample source - binary samples ready to run - a generic description of how to build the samples - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction son how to get maven going - javadoc for the API Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has sources and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be huge, as we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the samples. However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated. Kelvin. On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS distributed artifacts. We currently have the following distributions : - Source : have das source implementation (M2) - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2) - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source code and derby canned database (M2) - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2) Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like : - Source : DAS source implementation - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples binaries and derby canned database + javadoc My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view. I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the binary distribution. Please, express your thoughts.. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresendehttp://people.apache.org/%7Elresende - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input. I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make that easy for them? It's not very useful for the SDO binary distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a little clumsy. I do think it would be good to simplify the set of distribution files to a source and a binary distribution. So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_ distribution would include sample _source_. We could ship the sample binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user. So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of classpath etc, rather than how to that would require a presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven. Perhaps the binary distributions should include - the sample source - binary samples ready to run - a generic description of how to build the samples - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction son how to get maven going - javadoc for the API However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated. Kelvin. On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS distributed artifacts. We currently have the following distributions : - Source : have das source implementation (M2) - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2) - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source code and derby canned database (M2) - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2) Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like : - Source : DAS source implementation - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples binaries and derby canned database + javadoc My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view. I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the binary distribution. Please, express your thoughts.. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Comments in-line On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input. I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make that easy for them? DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source code allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also, could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with source. It's not very useful for the SDO binary distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a little clumsy. As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that supports J2EE applications. I do think it would be good to simplify the set of distribution files to a source and a binary distribution. So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_ distribution would include sample _source_. Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and source distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source We could ship the sample binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user. So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of classpath etc, rather than how to that would require a presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven. Perhaps the binary distributions should include - the sample source - binary samples ready to run - a generic description of how to build the samples - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction son how to get maven going - javadoc for the API Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has sources and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be huge, as we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the samples. However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated. Kelvin. On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS distributed artifacts. We currently have the following distributions : - Source : have das source implementation (M2) - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2) - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source code and derby canned database (M2) - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2) Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like : - Source : DAS source implementation - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples binaries and derby canned database + javadoc My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view. I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the binary distribution. Please, express your thoughts.. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK
Most users who download binary would want samples. Therefore, they will end up with the same size of package at the end of the road anyway. It would be nice to have the same distribution across SDO and DAS. On 5/17/07, Adriano Crestani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, As ant said, with the binary and samples together the distribution will follow the other projects' distributions and I think that the binary size won't be a problem. Anyway, I think the samples included in the binary wouldn't be clear for the downloader where the samples are or whether there are samples. So, with the samples separated would be easier for the downloader to find it. +1 to keep distribution layout Adriano Crestani On 5/17/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS distributed artifacts. We currently have the following distributions : - Source : have das source implementation (M2) - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2) - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source code and derby canned database (M2) - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2) Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like : - Source : DAS source implementation - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples binaries and derby canned database + javadoc My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view. I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the binary distribution. Please, express your thoughts.. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
[DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK
In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS distributed artifacts. We currently have the following distributions : - Source : have das source implementation (M2) - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2) - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source code and derby canned database (M2) - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2) Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like : - Source : DAS source implementation - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples binaries and derby canned database + javadoc My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view. I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the binary distribution. Please, express your thoughts.. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
