I have put an initial patch up on the JIRA, could you take a look? I decided to keep the rar filename as-is because it seemed easier all round.
Robbie On 22 January 2013 16:00, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Ok, thanks Weston. Though I would tend to prefer changing both, to > qpid-jca > > for the jar and qpid-jca-ra for the rar, I'm happy enough to keep either > > the rar or jar (renaming the source dir to ra) filename the same as it is > > now if it is going to be less work for people to pick up afterwards. > Having > > different names (excluding suffix) for the two will enable having them as > > separate modules / groups of artifacts, so at least one of them needs to > > change. > > > Yeah, good point. As per my last email, our internal QE department is ok > with whatever > scheme we choose so I think your suggestions make the most sense and am > all for it. > > Again, thanks for giving this the amount of thought you have. All looks > good. > > Regards, > > Weston > > Robbie > > > > > > On 22 January 2013 15:39, 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] > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
