In a geronimo plugin's metadata, could we allow the users to choose whether or not the server should eliminate the dependency version checking if the server is v2.1.2+? If the module name (for example, jasper or jasper-deployer) is there and the version is slightly different, we will just use the existing module in the server.
I guess this is sorta like the artifact alias, but the difference is that a user can configure this on a geronimo plugin basis and hopefully using just one property, for example <skipDependencyChecking>[2.1.2,)</skipDependencyChecking> Lin On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is another aspect of the problem. There are really 2 aspects: > 1) dependencies that the plugin needs. This is what we are trying to solve > the with the artifact-aliases defined in the compat* plugins referenced in > this note. > 2) The geronimo-version in the geronimo-plugin(s).xml. This indicates if > the plugin should even be shown as eligible for installation on the current > server. In order to even get to the point of leveraging what I have with > the compatibility plugins we need to either omit the server version (as we > are currently doing in samples) or loosen the version checking. I think it > makes sense to allow plugins within the same major.minor version to be > eligible for installation. > > Joe > >> >> Lin >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> We've had numerous discussions on how to facilitate plugins created for >>> an >>> earlier release running on a later release. It seems that the only >>> viable >>> alternative we keep coming back to is to create artifact alias entries to >>> map the older versions to the latest version. I'd like to have some >>> solution (even if imperfect) for Geronimo 2.1.3 so plugins we've released >>> for previous versions might have some hope of running on 2.1.3. My >>> primary >>> concern is that samples that we hope to release for 2.1.2 will also >>> install >>> on 2.1.3 using this mechanism. Perhaps even older plugins (like >>> directory) >>> could be installed in 2.1.3. >>> >>> To that end, I've created 3 compatibility plugins (not yet checked in) >>> under >>> the server /plugins. >>> >>> compat21 - includes alias mappings from 2.1 cars to 2.1.3 cars >>> comapt211 - includes alias mappings from 2.1.1 cars to 2.1.3 cars >>> compat212 - includes alias mappings from 2.1.2 cars to 2.1.3 cars >>> >>> I've already verified that I can install the 2.1.2 samples in a 2.1.3 >>> server >>> image using the compat212 plugin. >>> >>> The structure is such that once we release a 2.1.3 version I anticipate >>> that >>> we would create a compat213 for inclusion with the other compat* plugins >>> in >>> 2.1.4. >>> >>> These aren't very sophisticated. They simply include all artifact alias >>> entries for all cars shipped in the specified lower level release and map >>> them to the equivalent 2.1.3 release car. There are no tomcat/jetty >>> specific versions of the plugins ... just one compat plugin per prior >>> release with entries for all of the cars shipped with that release. I >>> don't >>> think the extraneous entries will cause any harm in the opposite server. >>> Also, I'm sure there are client cars included int he list that can be >>> removed (or perhaps moved to a client-artifact-aliases list). I hope you >>> will help me clean it up once I check it in. >>> >>> So now the questions: >>> 1) I'd like to check these into branches/2.1 ... should I? Just thought >>> I'd >>> check in case there are strong objections to this approach. >>> 2) I'd like to include all 3 compat* plugins in all 2.1.3 assemblies that >>> we >>> ship by including them in the boilerplate. This will provide "out of the >>> box" downward compatibility for plugins that have dependencies on the >>> lower >>> level cars. Any concerns? >>> 3) Are there other entries that we should include beyond the cars >>> included >>> in the javaee5 assemblies? >>> 4) Do we need to do something equivalent for client-artifact-aliases? >>> What >>> should be included there? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Joe >>> >> > >
