On 17 March 2015 at 17:58, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/17/2015 05:48 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> I dont have a real problem with moving the Java tools into the new >> Java area, but I wouldnt say its quite as obvious a fit as the Python >> tools going in the C++ area, so I wouldn't be against them retaining >> their own area. Having one less component area to release would be >> beneficial I guess. The downsides are releasing them when they often >> have no changes made (1 trivial change this release for example), and >> potentially being out of cycle with the C++ release they mostly >> targeted. > > > I'm thinking mainly about the dependencies. My recollection is that most of > the more recent changes have been a result of changes in the java libraries > (mainly the broker 'api', for the qmf adapter, I think?).
That has definitely been true for the broker plugin, though not the main other modules which are mostly only runtime dependent on the client through JMS. The guts of the broker model were being rewritten last year and the plugin makes extensive use of those bits so it was hurt as a result of that, and not being as easily buildable as the rest of the java bits meaning people didnt tend to do so. Now that the broker module changes calmed down a bit, there doesnt seem to have been an impacting change since August. > > I would also be fine if they were in a separate area. However my suspicion > there is that we wouldn't notice things were broken until after a release of > the java bits(?). > The CI job should point out breakage if needed to, but now that the tools bits are easily buildable along with the other bits (which it wasnt at all originally) developers have far less excuse to break it no matter where it sits. Robbie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
