If someone could deploy a build to a public maven repository it would
really help zk client development and adoption when integrating with
external maven-ized projects, since adding such a dependency is
trivial in maven.

.. Adam

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Hiram, afaik there is currently no interest (esp. among the contributors
> I've talked with) to switch from ant to maven. For the time being we are
> sticking with whatever Hadoop Core uses wrt build/release/etc... I know I've
> personally (in my role as release manager) gained a lot of benefit by
> "cloning" the Core process, scripts, documentation,  etc...
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> Anyone out there?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Congrats on the release.  Now that has been completed, I'd like to see
>>> if you guys are willing to revisit the issue of a maven based build.
>>> If yes, I'd be happy to assist making that happen.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Our first official Apache release has shipped and I'm already looking
>>>> forward to 3.1.0. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> In particular I believe we should look at the following for 3.1.0:
>>>>
>>>> 1) there are a number of issues that we're targeted to 3.1.0 during the
>>>> 3.0.0 cycle. We need to review and address these.
>>>>
>>>> 2) system test. During 3.0.0 we made significant improvements to our
>>>> test
>>>> environment. However we still lack a large(r) scale system test
>>>> environment.
>>>> It would be great if we could simulate large scale use over 10s or 100s
>>>> of
>>>> machines (ensemble + clients). We need some sort of framework for this,
>>>> and
>>>> of course tests.
>>>>
>>>> 3) operations documentation. In general docs were greatly improved in
>>>> 3.x
>>>> over 2.x. One area we are still lacking is operations docs for
>>>> design/management of a ZK cluster.
>>>> see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-160
>>>>
>>>> 4) JMX. Documentation needs to be written & the code reviewed/improved.
>>>> Moving to Java6 should (afaik) allow us to take advantage of improved
>>>> JMX
>>>> spec not available in 5. We should also consider making JMX the default
>>>> rather than optional (ie you get JMX by default when ZK server is
>>>> started).
>>>> We need to ensure that ops can monitor/admin ZK using JMX.
>>>>
>>>> 5) (begin) multi-tenancy support. A number of users have expressed
>>>> interest
>>>> in being able to deploy ZK as a service in a cloud. Multi-tenancy
>>>> support
>>>> would be a huge benefit (quota, qos, namespace partitioning of nodes,
>>>> billing, etc...)
>>>>
>>>> Of course ZooKeeper is open to submissions in that aren't on this list.
>>>> If
>>>> you have any suggestions please feel free to enter a JIRA or submit a
>>>> patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Additionally I'd like to see us move to an 8 week release cycle. I've
>>>> updated the JIRA version list to reflect this. Due to the holiday season
>>>> approaching I've listed 3.1.0 with a ship date of Jan 19th. (see the
>>>> roadmap
>>>> on the JIRA).
>>>>
>>>> If you have any questions/comments please reply to this email.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to