Jeremy Hughes wrote:
On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote:
I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I think there is
at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader generate EBAs
using different techniques - but both leverage the maven-antrun-plugin to
finally produce a file of type "eba".
I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module wasn't
being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the pom.xml
in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the .eba
artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the artifact to the
local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the .eba for
the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you know if it
will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba artifacts when
we do a release? If so, then I should look at using the same mechanism
for AriesTrader.
I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a maven
repository.
One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a jar using the
maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The jar will be
managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an "application" even
with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is correct then
perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable approach for the 1st
release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox assembly to
deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual bundles.
Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach long
term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from maven
control and add the .eba one?
I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out - is
there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of just using
the jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
application support only look at *.eba archives?
Joe
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I'd like to see at least those included:
* blueprint
* jmx
* jndi
* transaction
I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't really
looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
The transaction component is functional and we've been using it mostly
unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking about
declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for
volunteering
to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a better picture
of
the plans.
I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing since
it
hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb means it will
be
delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little too steep to
climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
The more communication the better. It's important to get everybody
thinking
and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there are any
differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of creating a
release candidate next week means that we should be getting more
restrictive
on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out - but in
general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't functional.
At
the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of the
components are fully functional yet (for example transaction).
Best Regards,
Joe
Jeremy Hughes wrote:
Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now out on
vacation until monday.
Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we have
right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must haves'
are to get the build in the right shape to create the distribution
files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of the
code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible. Since
this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns - w.r.t
timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If there are
particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included please
say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and target
issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target a new
0.2 version. WDYT?
Cheers,
Jeremy
On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeremy,
What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the release and
potential
target dates?
I think it would be good if you could summarize your thoughts in an
email
or
perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we make
progress.
Of particular interest would be the content that we would like to see
in
the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from "nice
to
have"), the current status of that content, target dates for the
release,
and the process that we plan to use to generate the release.
Thanks,
Joe
Jeremy Hughes wrote:
On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote:
Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to put those
on the wiki.
Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the process has
changed quite a bit :-)
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
Jeremy
On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller <[email protected]>
wrote:
Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all components at a
0.1
version number. Best to start with a simple versioning scheme, IMO.
Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an issue.
Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an important
step
for the community. Would definitely like to see this happen...
We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
--kevan
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
--
Joe
--
Joe
--
Joe
--
Joe
