On 27 May 2016 at 16:42, Gale Naylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, I got a few warnings that look serious ("...Maven versions might
> no longer support building such malformed projects.") and ("...using
> platform encoding Cp1252, i.e. build is platform dependent!") -- SEE BELOW
Ah - this must be because the archetype produces a minimal pom.xml
with the dumy activity (which is then tested) - and
that does not have the usual project encoding
declared to UTF8 (I think we inherit that from the Apache parent)
I've added now to the generated pom:
<properties>
<project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding>
</properties>
(although the generated files are all ASCII)
> [INFO] [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin is missing. @
> com.example:dummy-taverna-plugin:0.1.0-SNAPSHOT,
> C:\incubator-taverna-engine-master\taverna-activity-archetype\target\test-classes\projects\dummyActivity\project\dummy-taverna-plugin\pom.xml,
> line 20, column 12
These kind of warnings are for best practice to get a stable build
(and in Taverna's poms these are inherited from the Apache parent-pom:
http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/18/apache-18.pom
however as this archetype generates more of an example Maven project
for a Taverna activity, without a parent pom, I would rather it used
the defaults from Maven than we explicitly declared the plugin
versions.
Perhaps there is a more neutral "OSS" maven parent with reasonable
defaults we can use instead? (We don't want want to assume users
running the archetype are writing for ASF) I remember sonatype had
something like that..
> [INFO] [INFO] --- taverna-maven-plugin:0.2.1-incubating:plugin-generate
> (default-plugin-generate) @ dummy-taverna-plugin-plugin ---
> [INFO] [WARNING] Bundle :
> org.springframework:org.springframework.context:jar:3.0.5.RELEASE has
> unresolved package dependencies:
> [INFO] [WARNING] org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,2.0.0)"
> [INFO] [WARNING] Bundle :
> org.springframework:org.springframework.aop:jar:3.0.5.RELEASE has
> unresolved package dependencies:
> [INFO] [WARNING] org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,2.0.0)"
> [INFO] [WARNING] Bundle :
> org.springframework:org.springframework.beans:jar:3.0.5.RELEASE has
> unresolved package dependencies:
> [INFO] [WARNING] org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,2.0.0)"
> [INFO] [WARNING] Bundle :
> org.springframework:org.springframework.core:jar:3.0.5.RELEASE has
> unresolved package dependencies:
> [INFO] [WARNING] org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,2.0.0)"
> [INFO] [WARNING] Bundle :
> org.springframework:org.springframework.transaction:jar:3.0.5.RELEASE has
> unresolved package dependencies:
> [INFO] [WARNING] org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,2.0.0)"
> [INFO] [WARNING] Not an OSGi bundle : junit:junit:jar:4.4
Hm, yes, this kind of warnings could probably mean that an
archetype-generated plugin
would not load successfully with the command line - however I think
each of those listed
are provided within the taverna-commandline-product lib/
Also we should not scare developers using the archetype with lots of warnings :)
Let's track that as another Jira issue.
Perhaps after we have released the command line we can have a go at looking
at how plugins are installed and then try to document that - we have not got
any documentation for this as it has changed for Taverna 3.
> [INFO] --- maven-bundle-plugin:2.5.4:bundle (default-bundle) @
> taverna-workflowmodel-impl ---
> [WARNING] Bundle
> org.apache.taverna.engine:taverna-workflowmodel-impl:bundle:3.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> : Export org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.impl, has 1, private references
> [org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl],
Hm, no that is not good - I think it's one part of workflowmodel-impl
using another part of workflowmdoel-impl:
stain@biggiebuntu:~/src/taverna/incubator-taverna-engine$ grep -r
org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl . | grep -v
target
Binary file ./.git/index matches
./taverna-workflowmodel-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/workflowmodel/processor/dispatch/impl/AbstractDispatchLayerEdit.java:package
org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl;
./taverna-workflowmodel-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/workflowmodel/processor/dispatch/impl/DispatchStackImpl.java:package
org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl;
./taverna-workflowmodel-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/workflowmodel/impl/EditsImpl.java:import
org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl.AbstractDispatchLayerEdit;
./taverna-workflowmodel-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/workflowmodel/impl/EditsImpl.java:import
org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl.DispatchStackImpl;
./taverna-workflowmodel-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/workflowmodel/impl/ProcessorImpl.java:import
org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl.DispatchStackImpl;
So as they are both within the same OSGi bundle
taverna-workflowmdoel-impl I think that would still work fine - even
if it's slightly ugly and not best practice.
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
