First and foremost, I think we should release things more granularly so
individual components (most of our Maven modules) can be worked on more
independently. I would find it great to be able to work on improving the
NOSQL store or the Scimpi viewer without having to consider that every
other module has to be got into a releasable state just so one ready module
can be released. Most of the modules, outside of the core, are fairly
independent, typically relying only on the core and will work other
versions of other components, eg a viewer is not typically dependent on an
object store. Basically, we have the core modules, which need to be
maintained and released together, then we have a whole pile of major
component, mostly that can be developed independently.
The "editions", as I think someone referred to them, are a combination of
the components that are useful together, but are just that. They are
lightweight, just specifying how to pull those components together and
providing supporting resources like examples, configurations and extra
documentation. Think of these like Linux distributions, they pull together
a host of programs together to create a, sometimes unique, set up. The
distribution is just a collation of all the programs along with the
installer, some specific graphics and preconfigured settings. The programs
themselves are developed, and also available, separately.
Instead of keeping it all monolithic and using profiles to control what is
released (and what isn't) I think we should break it up into:-
A "Core"
Individual "Components" (viewer, object stores etc)
Specially targetted "Editions" (SOA, Web Framework, Modeller's toolbox
etc)
This would obviously affect both the organisation of the code and be
reflected in the site as a series of subprojects (like a number of Apache
project do, like James, Maven, Velocity and Xerces).
(Doesn't Eclipse actually something just like this - they have a core,
there are are series of components that work with it and they provide
different "editions" that target different types of user.)
Another benefit of working this way is that a (new) developer can
concentrate on a single component, i.e., check out a small amount of code,
use Maven to sort of the dependencies to other framework classes, which
will download the jars and then focus on just that one module.
Just a few thoughts.
Regards
Rob
On 11/29/12 14:36, Dan Haywood wrote:
This discussion post is mostly to the contributors, but cc:ing to user
list
for opinions also...
~~~
At the moment it's a daunting task to fully verify all the components of
the framework are working correctly prior to pushing out a release. I
suppose that wouldn't be so much of a concern if we had better automated
tests, but, hey, that's how things are.
Moreover, frankly, some of the modules are best considered spikes and
probably don't constitute something that we would consider
production-ready. Or, at least, they haven't been used in a real-world
context, so it's not possible to say whether they are really
fit-for-purpose. I include here quite a lot of the stuff that I have
worked
on over the last few years, eg the wrapper-progmodel, the groovy
progmodel,
probably also the JUnit viewer and BDD viewer. Now that we are a top-level
project, I'd like it that the code we put out is thought of as production
ready.
In order to make the framework easier to release, I propose that we use
Maven profiles to be able to release subsets of modules, that a given
contributor can stand behind and say: "yes, those modules are working and
are fit for general consumption". Each release would consist of the
certain
core modules, along with selected additional viewers and object stores.
For example, over time we might end up releasing:
* v0.3.1 core + objectstore-jdo + viewer-wicket + viewer-restfulobjects
// a "wicket/jdo release" - eg tested and released by Dan
* v0.4.0 core + objectstore-nosql + viewer-scimpi // a "scimpi/nosql
release" - eg tested and released by Rob
* v0.5.0 core + objectstore-dflt + objectstore-xml + viewer-dnd // a
"dev env release" - eg tested and released by Rob
* v0.6.0 core + objectstore-jdo + viewer-wicket + viewer-restfulobjects
// another "wicket/jdo release"
* v0.7.0 core + objectstore-sql + viewer-html // a "html/sql release"
-
eg tested and released by Kevin
* v0.8.0 core + objectstore-jdo + viewer-wicket + viewer-restfulobjects
// another "wicket/jdo release"
Whenever a release goes out, we would update our website to indicate the
most recent version of the components.
Now, when I say "release", what I actually mean here is the deployment of
binary artifacts up to the Maven central repo. This, after all, is what
most users/would-be users in the community would use and consider a
release. However, Apache's own formal definition of "release" is actually
the source code release ... this is what the [VOTE] mechanism is for. I
don't see this changing... the vote basically says that the software
complies with all the legal license stuff etc. The whole codebase is
tagged
with that release number, and the generated src.zip is a zip of this
release.
One benefit of this is that it allows the deployment of other modules to
be
performed "after the fact". For example, suppose that I (Dan) puts out the
v0.3.1 release as above, and then Rob later on tests the scimpi viewer in
that tag and finds it works well. He can (I think) push the release of the
scimpi viewer up to Maven central repo.
As I see things there are several benefits to this scheme:
a) (as already noted) the user community will only see binary releases
that
are known to be of production ready. This should mitigate the "is it safe
to use this component" worry
b) (as hinted at) it should be possible for individual contributors to put
out releases of their modules more rapidly
c) we get visibility of which modules aren't being released; for example,
we might say that if a module hasn't been released by anyone for 18 or 24
months, say, then it's probably time to remove it from the codebase.
~~~
In order to support the above scheme, I propose that we rearrange some of
the modules so that they can be more easily included within Maven
modules. I've
created a page on our wiki [1] which shows my proposed rearrangement. It
also repeats the above discussion text by way of context.
Opinions welcome!
Thx
Dan
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/ISIS/Make+**
releases+easier+and+more+**frequent<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ISIS/Make+releases+easier+and+more+frequent>
