1. After having imported the new source into our project I find too that artifacts are now not logically ordered and prefer an analogy with the project hierarchy (org.apache.isis.viewer.wicket -> isis-viewer-wicket). For people working on an specific area (like sql) and would like to have all related projects side by side it might be an idea to use working sets in Eclipse (hence the name).
2. I don't have a strong opinion on this because I can't really tell what's the most practical one. My gut feeling says using isis:core as a parent but I'm open to adopt other project's best practices. 3. Having read the semantic versioning article I strongly feel this is the way to go. Let's hit those numbers! -Jeroen On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Dan Haywood <d...@haywood-associates.co.uk>wrote: > All, > > Following on from the previous discussion thread relating to renaming of > artifacts etc, I've been doing some further work on the release process, up > to and including have now pushed our isis-core up to the Nexus staging > repo. Won't be calling a vote, just wanted to see if it all worked using > git (which it does, after a few modifications). > > Anyway, we have a few alternatives in some of the detail; if you have an > opinion on any of this, please respond... > > > 1. artifactId names: eg isis-jdo-objectstore vs isis-objectstore-jdo > > This point came up in the previous thread, and at the time I was ambivalent > as to which way we went on it. Now, though, I think we should use the > "reverse polish notation", ie "isis-objectstore-jdo". > > The reason is mostly this: if a developer imports the entire project from > the root aggregator pom (oai:isis-all) into Eclipse, then the project name > will (by default at least) be based on the artifactId. This means that > artifacts appear pretty randomly in the Eclipse workspace. > > Of course, the same argument applies if listing a directory, eg ls > WEB-INF/lib. > > Opinions? > > > 2. Should our releasable modules (core and each of the 20-ish components) > have a separate org.apache.isis:isis-parent as their parent (which defines > the maven-release-plugin configuration etc), or should they all use > org.apache.isis.core:isis as their parent. > > The benefit of the former (and the code is mostly organized this way) is > that, well, it seems to follow what many other maven projects do. But the > downside is that we would need to release this isis-parent artifact first, > and we might tend to forget about it and not update it. > > The benefit of the latter is we will always re-release it whenever there is > a new release of core, and - as a bonus - all the child modules will > inherit version definitions by way of <dependencyManagement>. > > Put another way: do we think that the lifecycle of our release process > itself be decoupled from the lifecycle of releases of Isis core? If yes, > we should have a separate org.apache.isis:isis-parent. If no, we should > just use org.apache.isis.core:isis as the parent of all releasable modules. > > Opinions? > > > 3. What should our version numbers be? > > This is quite a big one, possibly worth its own thread, but I was wondering > if we should adopt semantic versioning [1]. Thus, this first release will > be v1.0.0 of the core; any bug fixes would be 1.0.1, 1.0.2, any backwardly > compatible enhancements (to the APIs) would be 1.1.0, 1.2.0, any breaking > changes to the APIs would be 2.0.0, 3.0.0, etc. > > There's an argument that things aren't quite stable enough in core to do > this; the counter argument is that they are just numbers; if we end up with > isis-core v 12.0.0 in two years time because of a succession of breaking > API changes, so what? > > Opinions? > > > Thanks > Dan > > PS: fyi, I'm hoping to be in a position to put a release out of isis core > for voting by the end of this week or beginning of next, latest. > > > [1] http://semver.org. >
