Hi Robbie,
Yep, I looked at it. Everything looks good to me. Good work all around.
Regards,
Weston
On Mar 7, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Weston,
>
> I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the changes? I'd like to get
> this committed so that it is included in 0.22, letting us publish the jar
> and rar to maven central as the user requested.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445
>
> Thanks,
> Robbie
>
> On 29 January 2013 23:19, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <wpr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <wpr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <wpr...@redhat.com> 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 <
>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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 <wpr...@redhat.com>
>>> 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 <
>>>>> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <jr...@apache.org> 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: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
