I'm +1 for the changes as per Robbie outlined. -- Rob
On 22 January 2013 16:39, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure > we > > can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned > > discussion :) > Yep. > > > > I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven > artifacts, > > with the rar published separately as another. > > > Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent > jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance. > > > For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now, > but > > changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked > to > > become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output. > This > > would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in > the > > tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it. > > > Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may have > to change as a result so to be a good citizen > I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see it > as being an issue. > > > For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build > > produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for > > the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose > > either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or > > change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its > > linkaage with the jca module. > > > Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those involved > in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation will > have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either. > > > > Thoughts? > > > Thanks for taking the time to think about this. > > Regards, > > Weston > > Robbie > > > > > > On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Robbie, > >> All great questions. Wholeheartedly agree on > >> > >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process > >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit > of > >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing > >> the > >>> artifact in this release. > >> > >> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term > solution. > >> > >> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> -W > >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Weston, > >>> > >>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think > >> it > >>> has now missed the boat. > >>> > >>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar, > it > >>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it > properly > >>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and > >>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it > >> ad-hoc > >>> for 0.20. > >>> > >>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit > more > >>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the > >> clients > >>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present > in > >>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing > >>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which > >> require > >>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but > >>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and > also > >>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar). > >>> > >>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were: > >>> - Do we publish the jar as well? > >>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are > >> only > >>> for the jar and not the rar. > >>> > >>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the > >>> extension) if we do? > >>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built > by a > >>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar). > >>> > >>> - What would we call it? > >>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but > >> thats > >>> what it would currently be. > >>> > >>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually > >>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related > >> topic > >>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within > >> the > >>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general > but > >>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either > >>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the > most > >>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the > source > >>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the > >>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names) > >>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with > the > >>> current naming. > >>> > >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process > >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit > of > >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing > >> the > >>> artifact in this release. > >>> > >>> Robbie > >>> > >>> > >>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Robbie, > >>>> There is a JIRA > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445 > >>>> > >>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the > Maven > >>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have > >>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Weston > >>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell < > [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at: > >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133 > >>>>> > >>>>> Robbie > >>>>> > >>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, everyone. The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is > >>>>>> available here: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton > >>>>>> integration. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines > >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may > produce > >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions > >>>>>> without good cause > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines > >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may > produce > >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions > >>>>>> without good cause > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines > >>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line > >>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines > >>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the > >>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the > >>>>>> adapter methods. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines > >>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont > >>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as > a > >>>>>> result > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines > >>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the > >>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to > check > >>>>>> them all. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line > >>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines > >>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to > >>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits > >>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA. I'll follow this with a separate > >>>>>> [VOTE] mail. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes > on > >>>>>> the list. It is very much appreciated. Please try RC4 and prepare > to > >>>>>> vote! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Justin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
