2011/8/1 Marshall Schor <[email protected]> > > > On 8/1/2011 10:05 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > > 2011/7/31 Marshall Schor <[email protected]> > > > >> The addons build is now operating along the following lines: > >> > >> Each addon is built as if it were a single project. A common > >> target/base-bin is > >> created which has the main artifact plus dependencies, documentation > >> (including > >> javadocs) and LICENSE/NOTICE etc. for that project's binary > distribution. > >> > >> This is zipped / tarred up to produce "single assemblies". > >> > >> This is zipped / tarred up as part of the aggregate addons big assembly. > >> > >> This is also used as the base for making the PEAR file (for the > "annotator" > >> projects only) - this adds the PEAR installation xml file, and zips up > as a > >> PEAR. > >> > >> This is also used as the base for making the OSGi file (for the > "annotator" > >> projects only) - this adds the OSGi manifest, and deletes things like > >> documentation, which are not normally included in OSGi builds. > >> > >> --------------- > >> > >> The previous addons build did not create individual zips/tars of the > >> individual > >> projects - only the big aggregate ones. Also, the current process is > only > >> producing source-release builds at the top level. So, I think I will > >> change the > >> build to only produce individual zips/tars of individual projects if you > >> run > >> maven on the individual projects with -Papache-release. This will make > it > >> consistent with how it was before, and also make the source-release.zips > >> get > >> generated with the binary release. > >> > >> We also will need to decide on the distribution channels for the > >> individually > >> packaged addons, if and when we release them individually. The current > >> Apache > >> practice is to have the source and binary distributions for these come > from > >> the > >> Apache mirror system. An alternative is to attach these as artifacts to > >> the > >> main artifact and include them in the Maven deploy to Maven Central. > (or > >> both). > > > > +1 for both > > > > > >> Currently, we "block" the maven distribution of these artifacts, and > >> only distribute via the Apache mirror system. > >> > > one more thing I think it'd be nice is to have different packagings of > each > > addon on Maven Central so that one could include : > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.uima</groupId> > > <artifactId>BSFAnnotator</artifactId> > > <version>2.3.1</version> > > <type>jar</version> > > </dependency> > > > > or > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.apache.uima</groupId> > > <artifactId>BSFAnnotator</artifactId> > > <version>2.3.1</version> > > <type>bundle</version> > > </dependency> > > > > depending on its specific needs. > > What do you think? > > Good idea, but I think needs a small modification. The "Type" of the OSGi > build > is also a Jar. Maven provides another element that is for this case of > distinguishing two different kinds of builds, the "<classifier>". > > I think a classifier of "osgi" would be best ("Bundle" seems a little too > generic for me). > > So the alternative for the 2nd would look like: > > <dependency> > <groupId>org.apache.uima</groupId> > <artifactId>BSFAnnotator</artifactId> > <version>2.3.1</version> > <classifier>osgi</classifier> > </dependency> > > What do you think? >
+1 ! :-) > > > > > > > > >> -------------- > >> > >> So a bit more work to do - where we keep the structure for producing > >> individual > >> project source/bin zips/tars so we can easily enable it going forward, > but > >> block > >> the generation of these when doing the aggregate distribution. > >> > >> And, I have yet to verify that the aggregate binary-version > license/notice > >> files > >> are the concatenation of all the included projects' license/notice files > >> (with > >> duplicates removed). > >> > >> Also, I think the OSGi build, as it is currently used, will need to > include > >> some > >> UIMA SDK jars? > >> > > At the moment I'm not sure which is the right choice here so I've not a > > strong opinion, only I think we should go the 'safer' way, that I think > is > > including such jars. > > +1. > > Thanks for voicing your views :-) . > :-) Tommaso > > -Marshall > > > Tommaso > > >
