With Pierre's comment, I haved added in the list:
* jython-nooro.jar : can't find any evidences, somebody an idea? I think we should update to a newer version (scripting). Or even
wonder, since there is no use OOTB, if we should not comment out in service engine and let people download the latest versions
(other script engines too) if they are interested... Less burden, more accurate...
* axis-ant.jar, it's the lastest version included with axis-1.4 so I renamed it
axis-ant-1.4.jar (it has no name in Axis bundle)
* selenium-server.jar: was in Pierre's list but I can't find it in trunk...
Some changes I did today
* axis.jar => axis-1.4.jar
* bsh-engine-modified.jar I think it can stay like that. it's the bsh-engine
modified by David for the cache issue.
* wsdl4j.jar => wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar found in Manifest
* selenium-java-client-driver.jar came with svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=804074 I have not idea of the version. Do
we want to keep this in OFBiz now?
Enough for today
Jacques
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
* we have jars in OFBiz (some of them very old) with no release number in their file name: we have to research and find the
release number and then document it (manually renaming the file OR editing a tool config file like Ivy... I don't care at the
moment)
I can take care of that
I found
bsh-engine-modified.jar
OK done
httpunit.jar
mail.jar
nekohtml.jar
Tidy.jar
flute.jar
jaxrpc.jar
js.jar
saaj.jar
In Birt:
Tidy.jar (duplicated, also in main lib, I guess remove from Birt)
viewservlets.jar
ofbiz-minerva.jar (should we really keep it and related now? We know it's an
OFBiz specific version, ie patched)
axis.jar
OK done
wsdl4j.jar
OK done
selenium-java-client-driver.jar
javacc.jar (found a note from Marco: Upgrade javacc to 5.0 version, the javacc.jar must having only this name:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1076756&view=rev)
\specialpurpose\ebaystore\lib
attributes.jar
ebaycalls.jar
ebaysdkcore.jar
helper.jar
jcl.jar
ofbiz-tools.jar (should stay as is, I guess)
Also I wonder if we should take care about the parts which will be mode out of
OFBiz repo...?
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>
On Apr 12, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
First of all I believe that (packaged) releases are intended for
non-developers (end users) and not for developers. That in mind, releases
should have everything that is needed to run generic production systems.
And nothing more, not test code, not demo data.
Pierre, I could agree with you in general but please consider that OFBiz is a small community and no one is really investing a
lot of effort and helping much in release management (apart from backporting issues); in the history of OFBiz the community has
been mostly focused on new development on trunk and I don't see a reason now for changing this: we should minimize the time
required to manage releases and the current layout, where we have *one* project layout that is rather good for both development
and packaging releases, helps in achieving this.
When developers want to look at what is underneath for testing and/or
modification they can use svn to have access to everything they might need.
As is per ASF policy.
We do however facilitate the end user with additional code that helps them
to run OFBiz against other underlying Db's and systems (amongst other
reasons, due to licence-issues) , e.g. the ant targets to download drivers
for PostgreSQL and mySQL. I also believe that having source code in place,
that downloads every external jar required to run OFBiz as it should,
adheres to ASF policies.
If the jars are ASF compliant and not required to run the system.
I also believe that tooling can help building the releases (no matter what
must go in there) as per requirements of the ASF. This would lessen the
burden on committers. Instead of removing old versions of external jars and
uploading new ones manually, doing configuration management (as IVY- and
Maven-integration deliver) will ensure that the right (external)
components/jars are incorporated.
Can we step back a little and focus on my original questions? Instead of selecting the tool (ivy) and then trying to solve the
problem with it rather than manually please focus on the problem first, then we will select the right tool if we don't want to
manually maintain the jars.
So the main points are:
* we have jars in OFBiz (some of them very old) with no release number in their file name: we have to research and find the
release number and then document it (manually renaming the file OR editing a tool config file like Ivy... I don't care at the
moment)
* we have jar files that we don't know if they are used or not: we have to figure out and then remove them (manually removing the
file OR removing the line from the tool config file like Ivy... I don't care at the moment) or document their purpose
* we have jar files that are snaphots: can we upgrade them to a stable release or not? (manually or with a tool I don't care at
the moment)
* we have jar files that are rather old versions: can/should we update them or the new versions are backward compatible? and if
they are, do we want to update our code to use the latest versions?
When we will take a decision/solution for each of the above questions then we
will be ready to evaluate a tool to implement them.
Jacopo
Maybe we should setup discussions with Xavier
Hanin<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=xavier>
from
the IVY project to explain a bit more what it can do for OFBiz, before we
jump to conclusions or start heading in wrong directions.
I also believe that when applied correct (build, dependency management and
CI) tooling will help us in evaluate external jars better to include in
releases or not, and let us focus on what is more important.
If we decide that the approach is sound, then we should set up a different
branch to explore possibilities and not merge back into trunk unless all
issues are addressed.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 12 april 2012 17:02 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
On Apr 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
ivy would rename the jars the way we want (eg package-version.jar),
and using ivy, we would then reduce the LICENSE file, as less jars
would be released with OFBiz. From an extremist POV, we could only
whip ant + ivy, and one of the first task would be to download
everything.
No no, this is not possible: please ready my previous message carefully;
the release package will have to contain required jars (while the svn may
not) and most of all the LICENSE file must contain all jars that are
required to run/test/use the software.
Jacopo
