The Zookeeper development team should use whatever build system works
for them, Ant is a good option (Ant+Ivy looks quite compelling,
though).

However, for those of us, myself included, that do use Maven, could
Maven artifacts be deployed to the main repository as part of the
release cycle? That is the binary jar, source jar and javadoc jar?
It's not necessary to use Maven to do so (though it is easier); the
Lucene team push releases and they 'still' use Ant.

B.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Jake Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Hiram,
> I actually am just a user of zookeeper, I am not a "member" as of yet.  I am
> also a user of maven and ant and have been using both for many years.
>
> So while I would say it is never a bad decision to move to maven, it isn't
> always a needed decision.
>
> A standard build structure makes sense if you were building zookeeper
> yourself, but I don't beleive you would be doing that.  So that leaves the
> creation and building of your own projects like an ear, war, JBI, etc.  The
> problem with zookeeper is that there is no required project structure.
> There is no zar that is to say.
>
> I personally have a mavenized war project that I am using zookeeper in and I
> also have a hand rolled CL java program that uses it and is build with ant.
> For both of these I just needed to copy one jar into my lib.
> As far as dependency management, since zookeeper is so simple the only
> requirement is log4j, not really needing any complex dependency tools there.
>
> As far as modularity, again I see zookeeper being part of larger modules, so
> I don't know if we can draw a common modular zookeeper application
> structure.
>
> Maven is a great tool and can help alot, but I personally don't see it as
> synonymous with modern java development.
>
> -Jake
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> It would help new developers work with your project.  Maven provides a
>> a broad set of tools that lots of java developers have come to expect
>> out of a build system.  Incorporating those tools manually into an Ant
>> based build would be very time consuming and make the build complex to
>> maintain.
>>
>> For example, in addition the standard build and package aspects of
>> build, folks expect the build system to:
>> - support generating the IDE integration files (Idea, eclipse, etc.).
>> - Run static analysis tools like find bugs
>> - Run test coverage reports
>> - Deployment to central servers
>> - License Checking
>> - Artifact signing
>>
>> And most importantly, they want a standard way of doing all that.
>>
>> Maven also encourages modularity in the architecture by making it easy
>> build multiple modules/jar files and easily describing the
>> dependencies between then.  And once you go modular, you will see how
>> folks start contributing alternative implementations of existing
>> modules.  Copying a module and it's build setup is easy to do with
>> maven..  A bit harder with something like ant since it's kinda
>> monolithic.
>>
>> Ant was a great tool so if you guys want to stick to your guns that's
>> cool.  But in this day and age, using a ant based open source project
>> is kinda like it was when we used make several years back to build
>> java projects.  Works fine, but dated.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Jake Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > It is quiet around here, I am new, could you please explain why you feel
>> a
>> > Maven build structure is needed?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jake
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >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
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Hiram
>> >>
>> >> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>> >>
>> >> Open Source SOA
>> >> http://open.iona.com
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>

Reply via email to