Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-20 Thread Emmanuel Venisse
Thanks Rahul. Emmanuel On Feb 20, 2008 4:44 AM, Rahul Thakur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have re-organised and updated content related to Continuum 2.0 Roadmap here: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CONTINUUMDEV/Draft+-+Continuum+2.0+Roadmap Would appreciate if others can

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-20 Thread Rahul Thakur
Another feature (rather features) that i would like to see is around Change tracking/audit. I would like to add to the feature list - integration with some of popular Change management/ Bug tracking systems, such that user can see issues fixed in a build. On a related note, I think we are

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-20 Thread Brett Porter
On 21/02/2008, at 9:57 AM, Rahul Thakur wrote: Another feature (rather features) that i would like to see is around Change tracking/audit. I would like to add to the feature list - integration with some of popular Change management/ Bug tracking systems, such that user can see issues

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-19 Thread Rahul Thakur
Hi, I have re-organised and updated content related to Continuum 2.0 Roadmap here: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CONTINUUMDEV/Draft+-+Continuum+2.0+Roadmap Would appreciate if others can review/update/comment as appropriate. Also, I think we start cutting out concrete JIRA tasks

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-17 Thread Maria Odea Ching
Sorry, just caught up with my mails today.. Anyway, +1 on the things in the wiki. All the ideas are exciting :) As what have been mentioned already in the thread, I agree that it would be easier and more manageable to implement these plans in milestones not just in one blow. And if Continuum

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-17 Thread Erik Drolshammer
Maria Odea Ching wrote: Anyway, +1 on the things in the wiki. All the ideas are exciting :) As what have been mentioned already in the thread, I agree that it would be easier and more manageable to implement these plans in milestones not just in one blow. Smaller iterations and more frequent

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-17 Thread Rahul Thakur
Hello Everyone, I have re-organized the document on the cwiki.apache.org http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CONTINUUMDEV/Continuum+2.0+Roadmap* *and, moved the items into their own child pages. I think we should have a template to lend some structure to requirements captured and

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-08 Thread Rahul Thakur
Overall I think the core of Continuum should be re-though to be more pluggable. In particular a workflow engine should be in the middle of the execution to orchestrate any steps involved with building a project. This is one of the places where people should be able to plug in their own steps

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-07 Thread Rahul Thakur
snipped 1-2)I would like to bring Guice to the mix. I think it is worth investigating for Continuum 2.0 - WDYT? I need a reason to drop the current set of technologies, why is the new set better etc. My motivations behind this were: # leverage Java 5 language and other library

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-07 Thread Rahul Thakur
Here's my list: 1) Peformance improvements. 2) A slicker User Interface. Ability to let the user work in an offline mode (Google Gears!) and sync periodically. 3) Good user and developer documentation. 4) Better public APIs (rework Store and Continuum) Rahul Napoleon Esmundo C. Ramirez

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-07 Thread Christian Edward Gruber
1. +1 on distributed builds, along with examples on the 2 main use cases I see for distributed builds: a. building on many platforms for native builds that need multiple distributions. b. distribute the build across many machines to decrease the latency of building everything.

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Rahul Thakur
Some good points emerging from this discussion! :-) Would it be a nice idea to put following on wiki: 1) State goals/philosophy for C2 in light of lessons learnt from 1.x development - lean, mean, extensible (~add any other here~) 2) Document *all* features/requirements we want to see in C2

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Rahul Thakur
Are you thinking what I am thinking - an OSGi based runtime underneath and plugins/extensions that could be loaded runtime? :-) Carlos Sanchez wrote: Some comments Database vs xml: definitely database. Throwing away the db access api (JDO/JPA/...) now that it's already there doesnt make much

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Olivier Lamy
Hi, This looks very exciting (I love the plugin idea). As all of this features can be long to implement, I agree with Brett to separate into different millestones releases. (IMHO a full big bang will be very long). And currently they are some blocking issues in the 1.1 release. -- Olivier

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Brett Porter
We can create such a wiki any time - the challenge is converting existing content. If someone is happy to lose history and do it by hand, it can be done straight away. On 06/02/2008, at 9:25 PM, Rahul Thakur wrote: Some good points emerging from this discussion! :-) Would it be a nice

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Carlos Sanchez
well, if you want to have a plugin based architecture, what better that OSGi? and it may help too for distributiion of build machines On Feb 6, 2008 2:08 AM, Rahul Thakur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you thinking what I am thinking - an OSGi based runtime underneath and plugins/extensions that

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Tomasz Pik
On Feb 6, 2008 6:52 AM, Christian Edward Gruber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. I'm so out of date. I used to work with TopLink way back in the earliest days, and tracked it up to the Oracle buyout. After that I didn't pay attention, and it's clearly changed direction. Never knew the core

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Rahul Thakur
If everyone is happy to keep the history till date on codehaus wiki, I can help copy stuff across to Apache wiki :-) Rahul Brett Porter wrote: We can create such a wiki any time - the challenge is converting existing content. If someone is happy to lose history and do it by hand, it can

RE: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Erik Bengtson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mercredi 6 février 2008 17:34 À : continuum-dev@maven.apache.org Objet : Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap Hibernate can be used in a completely JPA-compliant mode, so it would be (theoretically) just as swappable as any other JPA implementation as long as you

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Jesse McConnell
] Envoyé : mercredi 6 février 2008 17:34 À : continuum-dev@maven.apache.org Objet : Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap Hibernate can be used in a completely JPA-compliant mode, so it would be (theoretically) just as swappable as any other JPA implementation as long as you don't use any

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-06 Thread Edwin Punzalan
I can only agree on the pointers given in the wiki. However, I'd like to reiterate the low significance of database portability in a CI server. I think speed matters but not really portability. Andy seems to be willing to help solve the database problems Continuum is experiencing. Just my 2

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-05 Thread Carlos Sanchez
Some comments Database vs xml: definitely database. Throwing away the db access api (JDO/JPA/...) now that it's already there doesnt make much sense. Maybe there are implementations that use xml for storage and that's where you'd need to look if you want file storage Spring vs Guice vs Plexus:

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-05 Thread Napoleon Esmundo C. Ramirez
Just some thoughts, I strongly agree to the proposed technology changes, particularly in the database, as it will definitely improve the storage performance. In line with the objectives to make Continuum a slick CI server, I think the design changes is a good move as well. In my opinion, having

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-05 Thread Brett Porter
On 06/02/2008, at 1:20 PM, Napoleon Esmundo C. Ramirez wrote: Just some thoughts, I strongly agree to the proposed technology changes, particularly in the database, as it will definitely improve the storage performance. In line with the objectives to make Continuum a slick CI server, I

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-05 Thread Christian Edward Gruber
Toplink is mentioned, but it's a commercial app, and I don't think they'll license it in a way that's compatible (unless they've radically changed policies recently). I'm not a huge hibernate fan, but at least its supported. At least with JPA and decent abstraction, you should be able to

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-05 Thread Rahul Thakur
Good to see C2 discussions picking up! \o/ Re. TopLink TopLink Essentials is governed by this license: https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDLv1.0.html I am not sure if that license is compatible with our goals or not. Also, EclipseLink has already been mentioned on this thread earlier.

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-05 Thread Christian Edward Gruber
LOL. I'm so out of date. I used to work with TopLink way back in the earliest days, and tracked it up to the Oracle buyout. After that I didn't pay attention, and it's clearly changed direction. Never knew the core was open-sourced. Anyway, it's always been one of the better OR/M

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-05 Thread Christian Edward Gruber
Incidentally, according to this: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html CDDL software can be included in binary form (so as a binary maven dependency), but the project would not be able to ship any source from it. regards, Christian. On 6-Feb-08, at 00:03 , Rahul Thakur wrote:

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-02 Thread Rahul Thakur
7) Documentation I would like to add and emphasize here on documenting the code itself as we write it. We are not going to get down to user documentation from day one but there will be users in the community who start consuming the code and contributing back as soon as we starting cooking it!

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-02-01 Thread Rahul Thakur
Rahul Thakur wrote: Jesse McConnell wrote: 1-2)I would like to bring Guice to the mix. I think it is worth investigating for Continuum 2.0 - WDYT? I don't think. I don't see the interest to look at it for Continuum. We already use Plexus that works fine, and if we decide to move

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-01-31 Thread Emmanuel Venisse
On Jan 30, 2008 9:05 AM, Rahul Thakur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Great to see version 2.0 discussions kicking off! Thanks for putting the ideas on confluence, Emmanuel. :-) Some notes around the ideas outlined on the wiki: 1) Architecture Moving to JSE 5 and JPA is a good idea \o/, it

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-01-31 Thread Emmanuel Venisse
On Jan 30, 2008 9:54 PM, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 30, 2008 12:34 PM, Jesse McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How important is the database really to things in continuum? To me it has always seemed somewhat of an annoyance to have to manage and maintain when so much

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-01-31 Thread Emmanuel Venisse
On Jan 31, 2008 11:05 PM, Jesse McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1-2)I would like to bring Guice to the mix. I think it is worth investigating for Continuum 2.0 - WDYT? I don't think. I don't see the interest to look at it for Continuum. We already use Plexus that works

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-01-31 Thread Jesse McConnell
1-2)I would like to bring Guice to the mix. I think it is worth investigating for Continuum 2.0 - WDYT? I don't think. I don't see the interest to look at it for Continuum. We already use Plexus that works fine, and if we decide to move to something else, it should be for the

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-01-30 Thread Rahul Thakur
Hi, Great to see version 2.0 discussions kicking off! Thanks for putting the ideas on confluence, Emmanuel. :-) Some notes around the ideas outlined on the wiki: 1) Architecture Moving to JSE 5 and JPA is a good idea \o/, it been fairly overdue ;-). 1-1)Can you please elaborate a bit on

Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap

2008-01-30 Thread Gordon Yorke
TopLink has a large community of users and active forums at both Oracle and Glassfish. If you are concerned about licensing, Oracle has donated the full TopLink source to the Eclipse Foundation under the Eclipse Persistence Services (EclipseLink) project. If you have any questions the