On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sameera Jayasoma <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 19, 2011, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Sameera, >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Sameera Jayasoma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2011, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Tharindu Mathew <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Tharindu, >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Tharindu Mathew <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Sameera Jayasoma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am in the process of commiting the Axis2, Axiom and Carbon version >> changes to Carbon and Stratos trunks. Please don't take commit or take >> updates. >> >> >> >> Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Will update the list once this >> modification is completed. >> >> >> >> Noted. And, asking again. Do we need to have a parent pom (above core, >> components, orbit, etc. - I mean above everything), which has the versions >> of cross cutting concerns such as Axiom, Axis2? Everybody would use that >> property, and any change means one-place to edit. WDYT? >> >> +1 for this, we have properties duplicated all over. >> >> No, it is not duplication, its inheritance (re-use). Maven projects >> inherit from parent projects. >> >> Sorry for not being clear. I meant we are defining the same property >> all over, without re-using the one in a parent pom as you proposed. >> >> Oh ok. Now I get what you meant. Yes, right now we have lots of >> duplication, which seems wrong >> > I don't think we have that much of duplication. Please let us know the >> > places where there are lots of duplication. >> > >> > If you ever had to change the axiom version or axis2 version in more >> than one place in the process that you've mentioned, that's wrong, IMO. OK, >> may be its ok to have it in few top-level poms, but I don't think that's the >> case, may be you can update this thread based on your experiences. >> >> Axis2 and axiom versions has not been repeated in Carbon project. In >> Carbon components project they have been repeated twice. That we need >> to change. Generally we haven't repeated versions that much. >> > > What about the products? > > OK, well, Carbon doesn't use these much as in the components, right? So, > may be we didn't get the real number. I'll run a grep overnight and count > the number of times the axis2/axiom version was specified. > >> >> >> AFAIK, we took a decision to maintain individual projects for Carbon, >> Components, Features.. etc a which ago. I guess this was done as a >> part of the branching strategy. >> > > Is this correct? > I don' think so. We took the decision to have dependencies, orbit, core, features & products folders. But this is to make a clear separation purposes only. /sumedha > Branching strategy came after this separation was in place, IIRC. But, > honestly I'm not too certain. Anyway, we still believe in the Srinath-test, > :-). That's the ability to build the whole thing from the top-most POM which > is above all of core, components, features etc. So, I don't see a reason to > why these have to be separate, as long as everything gets properly deployed. > > > Furthermore, a parent pom can be deployed independent of a release. We see > the same @ the ASF. It can contain properties and plugins used across the > platform, so I see nothing wrong, nor any limiting factor in having a parent > pom of this sort. WDYT? > >
_______________________________________________ Carbon-dev mailing list [email protected] https://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
