Hi, Jeremy.
I have some uncommitted changes (databinding and core/spi) and plan to check
them in during the weekend.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: build breaks (and how to fix them)
For the next phase of this I want to consolidate the parent POMs for
extensions and kernel. As part of that I would like to do the move of the
extensions into their own sub-directory and plan to reuse "services" for
that. The resulting tree will look like:
sca/services/bindings
sca/services/containers
sca/services/databindings
sca/services/idl
sca/services/transports
I intend to do the move Monday unless I hear differently - if you have
uncommitted changes please get them in to avoid conflicts.
In the meantime I will be updating the pom hierarchy to reflect this new
layout.
--
Jeremy
On Aug 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I have updated the POMs for the spec projects and buildtools so that we
are ready to publish snapshot builds for them.
This will allow us to build and publish SCA and SDO as standalone
projects. Once SDO is published, we should be able to build and publish
DAS.
To tackle 3), I will move the projects under a new subdirectory in sca
called (for want of a better name as core is taken) "kernel".
--
Jeremy
On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Sounds good to me. I will start to publish unstable builds to the
apache snapshot repo to help stabilize things.
--
Jeremy
On Aug 25, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
Many of us have experienced build breaks over the past several weeks,
particularly in the Java SCA project. I believe the root of the
problem to be not having the correct level of modularity. I would like
to start with a general approach on how to fix this and once we gain
consensus, move to creating a proposal for changing the current build
structure.
1. The source tree should be independently built from individual
projects under /java, sca, sdo, and das. Currently it is not since
buildtools is required. I would like to get to the point where people
can check out individual sub projects only and build from there.
2. For SCA Java, as Ant proposed, the samples dealing with extensions
would move to their appropriate extension projects. Samples that used
multiple extensions (e.g. BigBank with Celtix and Axis) would stay
under samples/sca
3. API, SPI, core, hostutil, host-api would be built independently
under a subdirectory of /sca
4. Runtime host projects would be build independently under a
subdirectory of /sca
5. Extensions would move into into a subdirectory of /sca (they could
still be organized according to type) and be built individually
against a particular version of the core "jars". This would mean that
extensions are not built together and are not built with the core.
This would shield the entire build process from breaking when an
extension breaks (e.g. Axis and Axiom not being in sync). It would
also mean changes to the core could be vetted and not impact work
being done on extensions.
Thoughts?
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
