Re: geronimo-dependency.xml

2007-10-14 Thread Donald Woods

+1

-Donald

Jarek Gawor wrote:

On 10/12/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:

This is geronimo's transitive depenendency feature.  When you
include a jar with such a file in a configuration's dependencies, all
the jars listed in the g-d.xml file also get included (recursively).

I'm not longer sure this g-d.xml file is a wonderful idea.  There
aren't that many of them and they seem to mostly cause confusion.


Yes, it's definitely confusing me :) Should we try to eliminating the
geronimo-dependency.xml files that we have right now? I can take a
stab at it if people agree.

Jarek



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: geronimo-dependency.xml

2007-10-12 Thread Jarek Gawor
On 10/12/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:

 This is geronimo's transitive depenendency feature.  When you
 include a jar with such a file in a configuration's dependencies, all
 the jars listed in the g-d.xml file also get included (recursively).

 I'm not longer sure this g-d.xml file is a wonderful idea.  There
 aren't that many of them and they seem to mostly cause confusion.

Yes, it's definitely confusing me :) Should we try to eliminating the
geronimo-dependency.xml files that we have right now? I can take a
stab at it if people agree.

Jarek


Re: geronimo-dependency.xml

2007-10-12 Thread David Jencks


On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:

A quick investigation into this gave rise to some insights and more  
questions -


Insights:
1) An explicit-versions.properties gets generated by the PackageMojo
while building every config.
2) I doubt if this is getting serialized into the car. So I am unsure
if this ever gets used.


It is used when compiling the car file.  It's intended only to  
restrict the c-m-p view of the local maven repo to make it look more  
like a geronimo repo.  It would definitely not be appropriate to use  
it at any other time.



3) An explicit-version.properties gets generated by the
InstallModulesMojo while building assembles in 2.0 but not in trunk.
4) And obviously, we are not using InstallModulesMojo for assembly  
in trunk.


Actually we are using InstallModuleMojo in trunk, however it now uses  
the PluginInstallerGBean to do all the work.  Since we're using the  
same plugin installer as we would be in a running geronimo server,  
there is no way to figure out what an appropriate explicit- 
version.properties would be or no way to send one from the maven  
environment into the plugin.




Questions:
1) what is the explicit-version.properties used for (in configs and in
2.0 assembly) ?


As noted above, to filter the maven repo to the versions specified in  
the pom

2) what is the geronimo-dependency.xml used for ? (a handful of
modules contain it)


This is geronimo's transitive depenendency feature.  When you  
include a jar with such a file in a configuration's dependencies, all  
the jars listed in the g-d.xml file also get included (recursively).


I'm not longer sure this g-d.xml file is a wonderful idea.  There  
aren't that many of them and they seem to mostly cause confusion.


Thanx
Prasad






On 10/12/07, Jarek Gawor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Folks,

In trunk, I've noticed that dependencies specified in
geronimo-dependency.xml without an explicit version get resolved  
to an

incorrect version when installed. For example, the root pom defines
geronimo-schema-j2ee_1.4 dependency with version 1.2. But in the  
final
javaee assembly only the version 1.1-SNAPSHOT was installed. I see  
the

same issue with other such dependencies.

Is anyone else seeing that too? Looks like we will need to specify
explicit versions in the geronimo-dependency.xml files. If so, how do
we keep the versions in synch with the root pom?


I'm starting to wonder if we should abandon the idea of allowing you  
to leave out versions in dependencies so geronimo will pick up the  
latest available.  The alternative hot-upgrade method would be to  
explicitly map the old version to the new version in  
artifact_aliases.properties.  If we decided on this approach we could  
insert all the versions into the g-d.xml during the build.


This would be a major philosophical change so I'd definitely like  
some discussion before we decide.


thanks
david jencks



Jarek





Re: geronimo-dependency.xml

2007-10-12 Thread Prasad Kashyap
A quick investigation into this gave rise to some insights and more questions -

Insights:
1) An explicit-versions.properties gets generated by the PackageMojo
while building every config.
2) I doubt if this is getting serialized into the car. So I am unsure
if this ever gets used.
3) An explicit-version.properties gets generated by the
InstallModulesMojo while building assembles in 2.0 but not in trunk.
4) And obviously, we are not using InstallModulesMojo for assembly in trunk.

Questions:
1) what is the explicit-version.properties used for (in configs and in
2.0 assembly) ?
2) what is the geronimo-dependency.xml used for ? (a handful of
modules contain it)

Thanx
Prasad






On 10/12/07, Jarek Gawor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Folks,

 In trunk, I've noticed that dependencies specified in
 geronimo-dependency.xml without an explicit version get resolved to an
 incorrect version when installed. For example, the root pom defines
 geronimo-schema-j2ee_1.4 dependency with version 1.2. But in the final
 javaee assembly only the version 1.1-SNAPSHOT was installed. I see the
 same issue with other such dependencies.

 Is anyone else seeing that too? Looks like we will need to specify
 explicit versions in the geronimo-dependency.xml files. If so, how do
 we keep the versions in synch with the root pom?

 Jarek