I am a fan of JRE as it ensure that everything works together at that point in time.
That being said, perhaps we should define what is "Jena Core". As opposed to jena-core, "Jena Core" are the components that provide the basic functionality that we want to promote for Jena. At this time it is probably everthing. However, if we proceed with something like jena-commons as a collection of code that provides functionality that might be useful for developers using the Jena Core but not required -- then it could be outside the JRE envelope. If we provide different configurations for fuseki (just thinking outside the box here) then those might be outside the JRE envelope. If we end up with a bunch of graph or model implementations (e.g. JDBC based, Hadoop based, etc) then they might be outside of the JRE envelope. I think we determine what goes inside the envelope by the following checklist: 1) does it implement a W3 RDF based recommendation (e.g. SPARQL) 2) is it required by any component that provides #1 3) is it required to provide a reasonable out of the box working implementation (e.g. TDB) 4) (optional) is it directly tied to and significantly affected by versions of the above (e.g. jena-security) If it ticks a box in the above then it is in. If not then it is out. If security end up outside the box, I would like a way to match security version with release versions and get the download pages updated, etc. Just my thoughts, Claude If we provide On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > In trying to reply to this, I keep coming back to teh release structure > and whether we want to JRE. (JRE = Just Release Everything) > > This affects the repo structure (not so much the modules). It would be > nice for people to check out just a part of the project. It's possible in > git but it's convoluted [1][2]. > > If there are multiple git repos, I don't see how JRE would work except as > doing each repo in turn producing multiple source artifacts. There isn't a > single source artifact produced this way. (We could write our build process > that glues things togther). > > I think we want to have JRE without excess plumbing and maintenance of a > build process. The partial fetch of Jena is an nice-to-have feature but > not at the cost of making other things harder. > > So it seems to be that we have one (git) repo. > > Within the one repo, we split up the modules into sub-projects. We > document/link to ways to pull part of the repo. > > The only module that might benefit from being separate is jena-iri which > is very stable. > > Does that make sense? > > Andy > > [1] http://jasonkarns.com/blog/subdirectory-checkouts-with- > git-sparse-checkout/ > [2] http://briancoyner.github.io/blog/2013/06/05/git-sparse-checkout/ > > > > On 23/07/14 13:48, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> Rob, >> >> Excellent >> >> I hadn't realised that TLP could have several git repos and for some >> reason I was thinking it discouraged. (No idea where that belief came >> from as it's clearly wrong.) >> >> It solves the big problem I was noodling on - how to be able to work on >> some of Jena without having to have everything cloned. It would (might) >> be tolerable for us committers but opaque for people coming to jena >> initially. >> >> Andy >> >> On 23/07/14 11:02, Rob Vesse wrote: >> >>> Hey All >>> >>> Following up on the recent discussion points Andy raised around module >>> structuring as the project expands its scope and modules do we want to >>> think >>> about reorganising our repository and how we do releases? >>> >>> For discussion lets consider splitting the current modules up into >>> several >>> sub-projects like so: >>> >>> * commons - jena-iri and Claude's proposed jena-commons module >>> * core - jena-core, jena-arq, jena-tdb, jena-security >>> * search - jena-text, jena-spatial >>> * fuseki - jena-fuseki >>> * jdbc - All JDBC modules >>> * sdb - jena-sdb >>> * client - Stephen's experimental jena-client module >>> * hadoop - The jena-hadoop-rdf modules >>> (This is just an illustration, what goes in which sub-project can be >>> decided >>> later, this is intended to stimulate discussion rather than to be a >>> concrete >>> proposal). >>> >>> So rather than having a flat trunk structure with each module in the >>> root we >>> would have a structure where each sub-project has a directory in trunk >>> with >>> its modules located under it. In this structure jena-parent then >>> lives in >>> the top level directory. >>> >>> With such a structure we could then consider having different release >>> cadences for different sub-projects. So when we do a new core release we >>> would not necessarily have to release everything else at the same time >>> (though in most cases I suspect we would want to), however if a >>> sub-project >>> wants to make an interim release in the meantime there would be >>> nothing to >>> stop this happening e.g. making a critical bug fix, tracking a >>> sub-project >>> specific dependency release >>> >>> Obviously doing this kind of restructuring would be really painful >>> with SVN >>> so might I suggest that any such change should happen in conjunction >>> with a >>> move to Git? >>> >>> The other alternative to such a trunk structure is to have each >>> sub-project >>> live in its own Git repository which does appear to be something that >>> Infra >>> supports - the list of repos at https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf >>> shows multiple repos for several projects (Accumulo, ActiveMQ, Ant to >>> name >>> just three near the top of the list) - so we could certainly go down that >>> route if we wished? In that scenario then jena-parent would need to >>> live in >>> its own repository as well (probably the main jena repo would contain >>> just >>> jena-parent and pointers to the other repos). However this approach >>> would >>> complicate releases somewhat since you likely need to have multiple >>> release >>> votes and release artifacts since cutting a release might mean releasing >>> from multiple releases and each would need reproducible sources. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
