You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> on 2007/03/29 01:54:45 UTC
0.9.7: build changes
One thing that I would like to see happen prior to 0.9.7 is a change to
the build artifacts so that we don't have '-project' or '-all' tacked
onto the releases everywhere.
Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as creating a
single jar with all dependencies, or a download that includes docs. What
do you guys think?
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
Re: 0.9.7: build changes
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>.
I agree that it would definitely make it easier to get started with
the project's binary. The only downside is if a user might want to
replace any of those JARs with newer -- presumably compatible! --
versions for some reason. It may not be an issue with OpenJPA, but
with things like Struts, it's not uncommon for someone to want to swap
out a version of commons-foobar.jar for something older / newer /
different.
So, as an alternate bundling -- +1.
Eddie
On 3/31/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
> >>> Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as
> >> creating a
> >>> single jar with all dependencies,
> >>
> >> I'm not all that keen on merging other project's jars into a single
> >> monolithic jar. I think people expect that component-oriented
> >> software is going to have various required and optional dependencies.
> >>
> >> I feel that monolithic jar bundling is more appropriate for an
> >> application, rather than for a component.
> >
> > I agree, but I know that others disagree, and I don't see any
> > reason why
> > one is necessarily more right than another. The cost to us of having a
> > separate jar / distro seems low, and if it helps with adoption, I
> > don't
> > see a downside.
>
> I think that it does help adoption, and I don't see a downside either.
>
> Craig
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Linskey
> > BEA Systems, Inc.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
> > contain
> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> > affiliated
> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
> > and/or
> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
> > individual
> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
> > recipient,
> > and have received this message in error, please immediately return
> > this
> > by email and then delete it.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marc Prud'hommeaux [mailto:mprudhomapache@gmail.com] On
> >> Behalf Of Marc Prud'hommeaux
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:15 AM
> >> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: 0.9.7: build changes
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> >>
> >>> One thing that I would like to see happen prior to 0.9.7 is a
> >>> change to
> >>> the build artifacts so that we don't have '-project' or
> >> '-all' tacked
> >>> onto the releases everywhere.
> >>
> >> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-194 for
> >> this and assigned it to myself.
> >>
> >>> Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as
> >> creating a
> >>> single jar with all dependencies,
> >>
> >> I'm not all that keen on merging other project's jars into a single
> >> monolithic jar. I think people expect that component-oriented
> >> software is going to have various required and optional dependencies.
> >>
> >> I feel that monolithic jar bundling is more appropriate for an
> >> application, rather than for a component.
> >>
> >>
> >>> or a download that includes docs. What do you guys think?
> >>
> >> The binary assembly is meant to include the docs (and did on past
> >> releases). I notice that they are absent from recent snapshots,
> >> though. I'll try to figure out why that is.
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Patrick
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
> > contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
> > and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
> > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
> > the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you
> > are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
> > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
Re: 0.9.7: build changes
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 29, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>> Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as
>> creating a
>>> single jar with all dependencies,
>>
>> I'm not all that keen on merging other project's jars into a single
>> monolithic jar. I think people expect that component-oriented
>> software is going to have various required and optional dependencies.
>>
>> I feel that monolithic jar bundling is more appropriate for an
>> application, rather than for a component.
>
> I agree, but I know that others disagree, and I don't see any
> reason why
> one is necessarily more right than another. The cost to us of having a
> separate jar / distro seems low, and if it helps with adoption, I
> don't
> see a downside.
I think that it does help adoption, and I don't see a downside either.
Craig
>
> -Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> BEA Systems, Inc.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
> contain
> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> affiliated
> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
> and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
> individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
> recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
> this
> by email and then delete it.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Prud'hommeaux [mailto:mprudhomapache@gmail.com] On
>> Behalf Of Marc Prud'hommeaux
>> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:15 AM
>> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: 0.9.7: build changes
>>
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>
>>> One thing that I would like to see happen prior to 0.9.7 is a
>>> change to
>>> the build artifacts so that we don't have '-project' or
>> '-all' tacked
>>> onto the releases everywhere.
>>
>> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-194 for
>> this and assigned it to myself.
>>
>>> Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as
>> creating a
>>> single jar with all dependencies,
>>
>> I'm not all that keen on merging other project's jars into a single
>> monolithic jar. I think people expect that component-oriented
>> software is going to have various required and optional dependencies.
>>
>> I feel that monolithic jar bundling is more appropriate for an
>> application, rather than for a component.
>>
>>
>>> or a download that includes docs. What do you guys think?
>>
>> The binary assembly is meant to include the docs (and did on past
>> releases). I notice that they are absent from recent snapshots,
>> though. I'll try to figure out why that is.
>>
>>
>>> -Patrick
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
> contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
> and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
> copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
> the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you
> are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
> error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: 0.9.7: build changes
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com>.
> > Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as
> creating a
> > single jar with all dependencies,
>
> I'm not all that keen on merging other project's jars into a single
> monolithic jar. I think people expect that component-oriented
> software is going to have various required and optional dependencies.
>
> I feel that monolithic jar bundling is more appropriate for an
> application, rather than for a component.
I agree, but I know that others disagree, and I don't see any reason why
one is necessarily more right than another. The cost to us of having a
separate jar / distro seems low, and if it helps with adoption, I don't
see a downside.
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Prud'hommeaux [mailto:mprudhomapache@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Marc Prud'hommeaux
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:15 AM
> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 0.9.7: build changes
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
> > One thing that I would like to see happen prior to 0.9.7 is a
> > change to
> > the build artifacts so that we don't have '-project' or
> '-all' tacked
> > onto the releases everywhere.
>
> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-194 for
> this and assigned it to myself.
>
> > Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as
> creating a
> > single jar with all dependencies,
>
> I'm not all that keen on merging other project's jars into a single
> monolithic jar. I think people expect that component-oriented
> software is going to have various required and optional dependencies.
>
> I feel that monolithic jar bundling is more appropriate for an
> application, rather than for a component.
>
>
> > or a download that includes docs. What do you guys think?
>
> The binary assembly is meant to include the docs (and did on past
> releases). I notice that they are absent from recent snapshots,
> though. I'll try to figure out why that is.
>
>
> > -Patrick
>
> >
>
>
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
Re: 0.9.7: build changes
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> One thing that I would like to see happen prior to 0.9.7 is a
> change to
> the build artifacts so that we don't have '-project' or '-all' tacked
> onto the releases everywhere.
I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-194 for
this and assigned it to myself.
> Also, we might want to think about other bundlings, such as creating a
> single jar with all dependencies,
I'm not all that keen on merging other project's jars into a single
monolithic jar. I think people expect that component-oriented
software is going to have various required and optional dependencies.
I feel that monolithic jar bundling is more appropriate for an
application, rather than for a component.
> or a download that includes docs. What do you guys think?
The binary assembly is meant to include the docs (and did on past
releases). I notice that they are absent from recent snapshots,
though. I'll try to figure out why that is.
> -Patrick
>