-1 on removing launcher *especially* since there is discussion on rethinking it for 2.0 release, which means this may be the last good version of it.
Ed > On Jan 6, 2015, at 6:31 AM, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here's our current status on the 1.0.1 release: > > We opened a vote on the Incubator list in December and IPMC member Justin > found several problems, missing headers, etc. John fixed most of those in > PR 133 and PR 137. > > We still have an issue with a GPL/CDDL licensed > class ClasspathStaticHttpHandler that is needed only for CSS handling in > Grizzly with is used by Standalone and Launcher modules. > > We could fix the problem by recreating that class, since it is just a > subclass, or by have no CSS support in the launcher. We can also fix the > problem by omitting those modules from the release, and we need to rethink > the launcher for 2.0 anyway. > > Before creating a new 1.0.1 release candidate we need to address these > issues: > > 1. Update NOTICE file to include 2015 > 2. In the .Net SDK, add a NOTICE file with contents from > packages/NSubstitute/acknowledgements.txt > 2. Fix launcher or Exclude launcher from release > > What else, did I miss something? > > Unless somebody is going to be ready with a PR that fixes the Launcher > today, I vote that we omit the Launcher and Standalone modules from the > 1.0.1 release. > > Thoughts? > > > Thanks, > Dave > > > > > >> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:13 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> One more thing I thought of. Try to make sure the NOTICE file gets updated >> to include 2015. >> >>> On Sun Jan 04 2015 at 6:43:25 PM Rod Simpson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Awesome. Sounds like a plan. >>> >>> -- >>> Rod Simpson >>> T @rockerston >>> W rodsimpson.com >>> >>> On January 4, 2015 at 4:01:56 PM, John D. Ament ([email protected]) >>> wrote: >>> >>> +1 I'm good with that. We do need to delete the file as well. >>>> On Jan 4, 2015 5:48 PM, "Ed Anuff" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we can kill the CSS files if necessary, it looks like this is >> the >>>> only CSS file that I can find: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/ >>> master/stack/rest/src/main/webapp/css/styles.css >>>> >>>> Simply commenting it out should have no adverse effect except that >>> certain >>>> pages are not going to look so hot. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure we could easily recreate the ClasspathStaticHttpHandler >>>> just by using whatever was auto-generated as a subclass by the IDE. All >>>> the important code in it was written from scratch, but deleting the >> file >>>> and commenting out >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/ >>> master/stack/launcher/src/main/java/org/apache/usergrid/ >>> launcher/Server.java#L159 >>>> will get us there the fastest. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok, I think I see what happened. >>>>> >>>>> However, i'm going back to my original question - is this really >>>>> used/needed? >>>>> >>>>> I can only find one css file that makes it into the rest app build. >>>>> >>>>> The JSPs get wrapped into grizzly directly - no source code. Unless >> you >>>>> want to say that Server might be from questioanble locations. >>>>> >>>>> It should be easy enough to rewrite if that makes sense, however I >>> highly >>>>> doubt that this file is really CDDL/GPL, since most of it looks >>> innovated >>>>> and the structure seems to be what's understood from the original >>> class. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun Jan 04 2015 at 5:01:59 PM John D. Ament < >> [email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Are we sure that this is actually a CDDL/GPL licensed file? Is it >>>>>> possible it was mislabeled? >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't find any reference to it in the grizzly code base. If you >>>> happen >>>>>> to have the pre-import source code around that would help. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun Jan 04 2015 at 4:52:45 PM Ed Anuff <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are we OK with putting out a 1.0.x release that doesn't have >>> Standalone >>>>>>> or Launcher? This seems problematic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Rod Simpson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The launcher is really just for convenience when initially playing >>>>>>>> around with Usergrid. I haven’t used it for a while and it may or >>> may >>>> not >>>>>>>> even work fully. It certainly isn’t integral to the system. I >> would >>>> be >>>>>>>> fine with omitting it from this release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rod >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Rod Simpson >>>>>>>> T @rockerston >>>>>>>> W rodsimpson.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On January 4, 2015 at 1:04:30 PM, John D. Ament ( >>>> [email protected]) >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, this is short term for the 1.0.1 release (can't ship it with >>> the >>>>>>>> licensing state as is). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> According to the code, it looks like it's only used for css, but >>> that >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> be a naming thing... >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/ >>>>>>>> master/stack/launcher/src/main/java/org/apache/usergrid/ >>>>>>>> launcher/Server.java#L159 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anyone know who this is and if we have an SGA (or equiv) from >>>>>>>> him/her? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/ >>>>>>>> master/stack/launcher/src/main/java/org/apache/usergrid/ >>>>>>>> launcher/EmbeddedServerHelper.java#L20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do have to ask, can we excluse the laucher from the release? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun Jan 04 2015 at 2:53:06 PM Ed Anuff <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I thought this was for the 1.0.1 release though. Regardless of >>> what >>>> we >>>>>>>>> want to do in 2.0, doesn't the current Launcher in 1.0 fire up >> an >>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>>> web server that serves, among other things, a few JSPs, CSS >> files, >>>>>>>> etc? I >>>>>>>>> understand the desire to blow aware the standalone server and >>>>>>>> launcher in >>>>>>>>> favor of other mechanisms (although I do think that will result >> in >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> being harder, not easier, for people to run locally), which is >>> fine >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> ticket 308, but what about 1.0.x? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Nate McCall < >> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. The launcher is getting an overhaul in the 2.0 >> branch, >>>> we >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>> haven't decided what that is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is there a Jira issue for this yet? I have some ideas (see >>> below) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We've found the embedded Cassandra to be >>>>>>>>>>> problematic, so we're open to ideas of ways to create a more >>>>>>>> usable >>>>>>>>>>> standalone distro that utilizes the war binary created with >>> our >>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>> process. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think this is a realistic goal given the complexity. >>>> Running >>>>>>>>>> this as a "fat jar" application and forking Cassandra to it's >>> own >>>>>>>>>> process would be the sanest approach. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Them's my $0.02 - let's do discussion on a ticket though. >>> Couldn't >>>>>>>>>> find one, so I created: >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/USERGRID-308 >>
