Simon Laws wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Simon Nash <[email protected]> wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Simon L made the following comment on TUSCANY-3508 (see [1]):
Do we need the binary version of the travel sample distribution? It
seems
> that people interested in the sample would want to look at the source
code.
> Just running it is not very interesting as, as is often the way with
samples,
> it doesn't really do anything useful in its own right.
I don't think we need the binary distribution as a separately released
artifact.
However I do think we need to retain the distribution directory within
the
sample source tree so that people can build the binary distribution for
themselves and see what the executable binary artifacts look like.
This approach would suggest that using the name "distribution" for this
directory might not be ideal. Other possibilities for this directory
name
are "binaries", "executables", "runtime", ???
Of the above options I would have a slight preference for "binaries".
Thoughts, other suggestions?
Simon
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3508?focusedCommentId=12847769&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12847769
On reflection we can't rename the "distribution" directory because this
is also used to produce the source distribution. We could do the
following:
1. Split the current "distribution" directory into two directories at
the same level, one called "distribution" which creates the source
distribution and one called "binaries" which creates what we are
currently calling the binary distribution.
2. Take "distribution" out of the top-level maven build, so that when
users build the travel sample they don't create an extra copy of
the source distribution.
3. Add "binaries" to the top-level maven build, so that when users build
the travel sample they get a complete set of the binary artifacts
needed to run it.
I can make these changes if we agree that this is the right approach.
Simon
Any thoughts or comments on the above proposal?
Simon
+1 for 1 and 2.
If we do step 3 and build binaries is the suggestion that users run
the samples from the binaries? It may be good to have this as an
option but I'd rather we stick with the source distro based ant
scripts primarily. It seem more straightforward.
The "binaries" directory would contain a complete set of binaries
and their runtime dependencies (configuration files etc.) so that users
can easily see exactly what files are needed at runtime.
I agree that running out of the source directories is easier in a
development/test environment but this doesn't explain how people can
package an application like this for redistribution in a production
environment. This is not straightforward and I have spent many weeks
figuring it out. It would seem a shame not to provide users with the
benefit of this knowledge.
Simon
