On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 08:39, Scott M Stark wrote: > I'm not following. aop and xb are no brainer standalone projects that > should not be in the jbossas cvs module alias by default. ws and ejb3 > probably need to be refactored into standalone modules and a server > integration module which can be included in jbossas. >
Yes, because WS and EJB3 use the same codebase to target different JBossAS releases. Bill already has some compatibility code to try to deal with this in EJB3. > I'm not advocating chaos in head because its a good thing. We just need > to get to a point where getting this fixed is a priority, and be willing > to live with some breakage to get there. If it needs a phased approach, > that is fine. What do you suggest? > I was advocating the same JFDI (Just *#&^ Do It) approach with my "byte with bullet" comment. :-) I was just pointing out the potential problems it may cause people in terms of current development during the transition. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrian Brock > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:15 AM > > To: Scott M Stark > > Cc: jboss-development@lists.sourceforge.net; QA > > Subject: RE: Ongoing build changes: was RE: [JBoss-dev] On > > the edgeoftheMaven cliff > > > > Ironically, one of the problems I am trying to solve will be > > made worse by this approach. > > > > That is the number of projects that are really standalone but > > are developed in head alongside the application server code. > > e.g. AOP, JBossXB, JBossWS, EJB3 > > > > They need a useable head branch, even if nobody seems to be > > paying too much attention to all the testsuite failures. > > > > I agree with that we shouldn't do anything to the production > > branches until we have validated everything in head. > > > > On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 07:56, Scott M Stark wrote: > > > Part of the problem is everyone running around trying to > > get work done > > > on multiple branches while Ruel is trying to baby step new build > > > setups in. I think we need to get to a point where we just > > say head is > > > going to be refactored and potentially broken for an > > extended period > > > of time while we refactor it for: > > > > > > - build structure > > > - module coarseness and invalid dependencies (like the > > server/security > > > issue) > > > - refactoring for integration api introduction > > > > > > The production branches have to remain stable during this. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Adrian Brock > > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:43 AM > > > > To: jboss-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > Cc: QA > > > > Subject: RE: Ongoing build changes: was RE: [JBoss-dev] > > On the edge > > > > oftheMaven cliff > > > > > > > > We already have a task for it > > > > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBBUILD-58 > > > > > > > > But I don't believe anybody has really looked at what it > > will take > > > > in general. > > > > > > > > My comments on the issue in the forums are mainly based on what I > > > > remember seeing when I was fixing other things. > > > > > > > > None of the JIRA tasks contain a link to these discussions. > > > > Which is my fault. :-( > > > > > > -- > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Adrian Brock > > Chief Scientist > > JBoss Inc. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Adrian Brock Chief Scientist JBoss Inc. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list JBoss-Development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
