On 01/03/2011 12:43, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
On 1 March 2011 11:36, Guillaume Nodet<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm really lost. I thought you absolutely wanted a per-bundle release
cycle and now you're advocating a single release with everything
inside. Could you please clarify ?
I'm not advocating a single release. I'm advocating having less
distributions than Zoe's
proposal requires. Zoe's proposal says we have a distribution per
current module and I am
suggesting we want less than that. A distribution that will give you
everything you need for
blueprint, a distribution with everything you need for applications etc.
I think I agree. So, I suggest that we'd do release by bundles, but have
the following 'distributions'
- blueprint (includes all of the aries-* jars that blueprint needs)
- application-runtime (includes all of the aries-* jars required for a
non-isolating runtime)
- application-runtime-isolated (includes all of the aries-* jars
required for a isolating runtime)
- samples (a distribution of the samples, including source, in which the
samples assembly projects include a specific set of aries bundles)
This makes more sense to me than including source in a distribution. And
I _think_ it meets the most likely users' requirement of knowing what
bundles the need.
Zoe
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:10, Alasdair Nottingham<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
need a distribution per module.
Alasdair
On 28 February 2011 11:36, zoe slattery<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
something that is probably worth discussing.
For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
different to bundle versions
- We can release by module as we do now
- Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
- We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
names
2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work together.
- A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
- Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
- We don't release the same code over again
I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
http://people.apache.org/~zoe/TEST-org.apche.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip. It
contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
(a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in a
distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do. Just
collecting up the bundles is very easy.
(b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
samples, but I haven't tried yet.
Zoė
<http://people.apache.org/%7Ezoe/TEST-org.apache.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
[email protected]
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
