On 3/24/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/24/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I give up on this, and I'll try not bring this subject up anymore
!!!
Don't give up, its important to get to the build we think is the best for
Tuscany.
I think the crux of the
-
From: Luciano Resende [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 March 2007 00:05
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build structure - having cake and still eating
OK, I give up on this, and I'll try not bring this subject
up anymore !!!
I'll continue with my hijacked java/pom.xml and update
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build structure - having cake and still eating
Meeraj,
Using assemblies is ok. It does not have to be published.
Once everyone is in the same bandwagon, then it's ok to
publish. Till then, please find a way to work with
assemblies w/o having
On Mar 24, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Using assemblies is ok. It does not have to be published. Once
everyone is in the same bandwagon, then it's ok to publish. Till then,
please find a way to work with assemblies w/o having to rely on
published artifacts. If this is a maven
: Build structure - having cake and still eating
Meeraj,
Using assemblies is ok. It does not have to be published.
Once everyone is in the same bandwagon, then it's ok to
publish. Till then, please find a way to work with
assemblies w/o having to rely on published artifacts
Hi Jeremy
For the assembly proposal, are you suggesting something like :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/lresende/sca/distribution/tss-sample/
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
On 3/22/07, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy,
On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:11 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
Hi Jeremy
For the assembly proposal, are you suggesting something like :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/lresende/
sca/distribution/tss-sample/
Something like that, yeah.
You want to rely on things that are
Jeremy
So, having these assemblies modules sounded interesting to me until the
moment you said you want to base them on deployed artifacts... we have never
had a habit of publishing SNAPSHOTS for all possible artifacts, and even the
members of the community that are proposing this approach are
On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
Jeremy
So, having these assemblies modules sounded interesting to me
until the
moment you said you want to base them on deployed artifacts... we
have never
had a habit of publishing SNAPSHOTS for all possible artifacts, and
even the
OK, I give up on this, and I'll try not bring this subject up anymore !!!
I'll continue with my hijacked java/pom.xml and update it as needed, I just
feel sorry for the new people that will come to the Tuscany community and
will fill the same pain as Mario and others.
Just in case others might
On 3/24/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I give up on this, and I'll try not bring this subject up anymore !!!
Don't give up, its important to get to the build we think is the best for
Tuscany.
I think the crux of the problem was said in the previous email - we can't
see how
+1 to move back to single version and a project you can build from
the top with mvn
On 3/23/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/24/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I give up on this, and I'll try not bring this subject up anymore !!!
Don't give up, its important to
interest
of the community and the project.
ta
Meeraj
-Original Message-
From: Luciano Resende [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 March 2007 00:05
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build structure - having cake and still eating
OK, I give up on this, and I'll try not bring
We know from M2 experience and the number of profiles in the
integration branch that a top-down, build-everything approach does
not work.
We also know from practical experience that people struggle building
modules.
I believe there is a middle ground that supports both approaches;
* have
a
relative path for the module will work.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Build structure - having cake and still eating
We know from M2 experience and the number
On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
+1.
I think it's in line with the proposal in my response to Meeraj.
One question: For a bundle to reference a module in the Tuscany
source tree, do we really have to copy (or use svn:externals
property) if it points to a location (under
On 3/22/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
+1.
I think it's in line with the proposal in my response to Meeraj.
One question: For a bundle to reference a module in the Tuscany
source tree, do we really have to copy (or use
-
From: Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Build structure - having cake and still eating
On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
+1.
I think it's in line with the proposal in my response to Meeraj.
One
On Mar 22, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
stupidquestion
When you talk about flattening the module hierarchy do you mean this
literally in svn (which I like the sound of as I can never find
anything in
all the nested dirs - my inexperience showing) or is this some virtual
flattening?
On 3/22/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
stupidquestion
When you talk about flattening the module hierarchy do you mean this
literally in svn (which I like the sound of as I can never find
anything in
all the nested dirs - my
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
Jeremy. This sounds like a simpler approach than what is there now.
I like
the idea but a question.
1) move everything that does not logical depend on
org.apache.tuscany:sca:1.0-incubating to contrib
from your previous definition do you mean
On 3/22/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
Jeremy. This sounds like a simpler approach than what is there now.
I like
the idea but a question.
1) move everything that does not logical depend on
org.apache.tuscany:sca:1.0-incubating
structure - having cake and still eating
We know from M2 experience and the number of profiles in the
integration branch that a top-down, build-everything approach
does not work.
We also know from practical experience that people struggle
building modules.
I believe there is a middle
Jeremy,
I'd like to see some progress on the community front! Let's see this
approach agreed upon and fleshed out a bit more.
thanks,
dims
On 3/22/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
Jeremy. This sounds like a simpler approach than what
OK.
If we're going to hold the vote, I'll pull the candidate artifacts.
We can republish them later.
That does mean that everyone will need to install the sca parent pom
from the tag in SVN before any of the modules in trunk will build.
--
Jeremy
On Mar 22, 2007, at 5:27 PM, Davanum
Jeremy,
Please take a look at axis2 poms and geronimo poms. you don't need to
install the parent pom before building modules. you can specify
relative path to the parent.
-- dims
On 3/22/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK.
If we're going to hold the vote, I'll pull the candidate
26 matches
Mail list logo
