Peter, would you be open to having someone else publish the artifact to maven? We are pretty deep in the process of publishing out a variety of maven artifacts. Brad (cc) might be amenable to doing this to help remove possible blockers from a 3.0 river release.
Just fyi, we are in US eastern so the time zone difference is pretty large. Bryan On Aug 30, 2015 6:47 AM, "Peter" <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: My uploading custard-apple to Maven Central will be dependant on me creating new PGP Keys in a Unix environment, which I also have to install, I do intend on getting this done in the near future, however I'm also quite busy, but given Rivers pace of devlopment, I'll probably get this done before 3.0 is released. I'm not against any options below, the project is free to choose. Regards, Peter. On 13/08/2015 6:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > Good point. That seems to eliminate my option 1. > > On 8/13/2015 1:45 AM, Greg Trasuk wrote: > >> If we have a dependency on a library that’s not in Maven Central, >> then using River in a Maven-based project (for example, the River >> Examples project) will effectively be impossible (it can be done but >> is a royal nuisance for downstream users). >> >> As such, I’d vote against any release that has a dependency on a >> library that’s not in Maven Central. >> >> If Peter’s not able to put custard-apple into Maven Central, then I >> think we have no choice but to accept it as contributed code and roll >> it into River. >> >> A third option would be to accept it as a contributed code, but treat >> it as a separate deliverable and publish it on its own into Maven >> Central. The only caveat is that we would have to rename the >> packages to ‘org.apache.river….’, since we can only publish under the >> ‘org.apache’ and ‘net.jini’ group ids. Peter (or anyone here) could >> maintain it under River’s aegis, and other users could still get it >> out of Maven Central. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Greg >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Peter. >>> >>> It appears to me that we have three options for dealing with >>> "custard apple": >>> >>> 1. Do not include it in the release, but include a download link in >>> the installation instructions. >>> >>> Pro: easy for us. Con: more work for users. >>> >>> 2. Include a selected source subset that River currently needs. >>> >>> Pro: minimize source code volume. Con: more complicated maintenance >>> - if Peter makes a change, we would need to check whether it >>> involves the subset. >>> >>> 3. Include the whole library source. >>> >>> Pro: simpler maintenance - if Peter makes a change, we just copy in >>> the change. Con: Distributing source code that is not used by >>> River. >>> >>> Any other options we should consider? Other pros or cons I have not >>> thought of? Opinions? >>> >>> On 8/12/2015 5:34 AM, Peter wrote: >>> >>>> It's AL2 licensed, the source is in a jar file in dep-libs, >>>> consider it already contributed. >>>> >>>> The library contains more code than you need, as it covers every >>>> type of Java Collections interface, up to Java 7 (it will be >>>> updated at some point to support Java 8 & 9 collections >>>> interfaces also). >>>> >>>> The code itself is scalable, it has a single JVM thread that >>>> performs garbage collection of references, api calling threads >>>> don't perform this task. The references themselves are often >>>> created and destroyed without being shared among other threads, a >>>> large number never leave CPU cache and safe publication is used >>>> to avoid synchronization. Overhead is low and its public API is >>>> compact. >>>> >>>> For the most part use of soft references is advised against, >>>> however there is a case for a cache that degrades gracefully >>>> under load in the form of a Map where keys are timed and values >>>> softly reachable (or vice versa), to avoid extreme cases where a >>>> JVM is running out of memory, the jvm gc can clear entries that >>>> aren't strongly reachable (even though timed keys haven't >>>> expired) at its descretion potentially avoiding or at least >>>> delaying an OOME. Timed references will prune infrequently used >>>> cache values, even though they're still strongly reachable. >>>> >>>> Unlike other cache libraries, custard apple only implements >>>> reference capabilities, allowing the user to wrap this over their >>>> preferred collection, such as ConcurrentHashMap, >>>> ConcurrentSkipListMap, NonBlockingHashMap etc, it reduces code >>>> duplication and allows the user to benefit from new performance >>>> improvements in popular collections. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Peter. >>>> >>>> On 12/08/2015 8:57 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does it have a license that lets us do that? >>>>> >>>>> (If you are the writer, and copy it in yourself, it would be >>>>> covered by your ICLA, just like any other code you contribute >>>>> to Apache.) >>>>> >>>>> On 8/12/2015 12:00 AM, Peter wrote: ... >>>>> >>>>>> I'm a little busy right now to consider moving custard apple. >>>>>> If you wan't you can always copy only the code in use into >>>>>> org.apache.river.impl >>>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >
