You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/25 00:37:48 UTC
OCM status
I think the ocm project reorganisation is almost done. If you want to
commit, it is not necessary to wait.
Here is the result :
1/ The annotation support has been integrated into the jcr-mapping
subproject (otherwise it is too complex to run on the same unit tests). I
will drop the subfolder annotation later (don't use it) . Digester mapper
impl can be dropped if nobody is using it. Personally, I plan to use the
annotation impl when it will be stable.
2/ Jackrabbit dependencies have been dropped. it is used only in the unit
tests.
I'm going to work on the annotation impl (mainly the unit tests). Later, we
can rename the folders & review the pom for a better integration with the
jackrabbit build process.
br,
Christophe
Re: OCM status
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Paddy,
Am Donnerstag, den 27.09.2007, 14:49 -0700 schrieb Padraic I. Hannon:
> Everything compiles, however, since the tests all use annotations they
> do not work. Near as I can tell this is all I need to continue.
Do I understand you correctly ? You need to have the tests running on
JDK 1.4 to continue, having the tests succeed when run on JDK 5 with the
binary build on JDK 1.4 does not suffice your needs ? (just trying to
understand your needs and whether there is something we have to do about
the tests).
Regards
Felix
Re: OCM status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
You are welcome. thanks for the feedback.
On 9/27/07, Padraic I. Hannon <pi...@wasabicowboy.com> wrote:
>
> Everything compiles, however, since the tests all use annotations they
> do not work. Near as I can tell this is all I need to continue.
>
> thanks!
> Paddy
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by "Padraic I. Hannon" <pi...@wasabicowboy.com>.
Everything compiles, however, since the tests all use annotations they
do not work. Near as I can tell this is all I need to continue.
thanks!
Paddy
Re: OCM status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hi Paddy,
Can you try to compile the OCM tools with the jdk 1.4. A maven profile has
been added for the jdk 1.4.Let us know if you have some problems.
Thanks,
Christophe
On 9/25/07, Padraic I. Hannon <pi...@wasabicowboy.com> wrote:
>
> I am having a hard time scheduling our ops team to rev us to 1.5 as it
> requires an app server upgrade. The first available time they will give
> me is Q3, not that edmunds.com problems should be the problems of the
> OCM project, but I really want to use the tool to build out our data and
> content structures for next year. I have a few major initiatives where
> JCR + OCM could really fit.
>
> -paddy
>
> Padraic I. Hannon wrote:
> > That pretty much kills Edmunds.com's ability to use the tool.
> >
> > -paddy
> >
>
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by "Padraic I. Hannon" <pi...@wasabicowboy.com>.
I am having a hard time scheduling our ops team to rev us to 1.5 as it
requires an app server upgrade. The first available time they will give
me is Q3, not that edmunds.com problems should be the problems of the
OCM project, but I really want to use the tool to build out our data and
content structures for next year. I have a few major initiatives where
JCR + OCM could really fit.
-paddy
Padraic I. Hannon wrote:
> That pretty much kills Edmunds.com's ability to use the tool.
>
> -paddy
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by "Padraic I. Hannon" <pi...@wasabicowboy.com>.
That pretty much kills Edmunds.com's ability to use the tool.
-paddy
Christophe Lombart wrote:
> Paddy,
>
> I understand your point of view but annotation support is certainly a nice
> feature for our community.
> I'm sure we will increase the ocm community size if we have a strong
> annotation support.
> Our first idea was to split the project but it add more complexity for
> almost nothing. So, we decided to support only 1.5 for the ocm tools.
>
> br,
> Christophe
>
>
> On 9/25/07, Padraic I. Hannon <pi...@wasabicowboy.com> wrote:
>
>> Having support for JDK 1.4 (since the rest of jackrabbit will work with
>> 1.4) should be maintained (otherwise I am dead in the water as I cannot
>> get our ops guys to let us upgrade, a long story). That is my vote :-)
>>
>> -paddy
>>
>>
>
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 9/26/07, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Could we define a maven profile, which compiles for 1.4 but omits the
> annotation stuff ? I could have a look at this, if you agree.
+1
Regards
> Felix
>
> Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2007, 21:37 +0200 schrieb Christophe Lombart:
> > Paddy,
> >
> > I understand your point of view but annotation support is certainly a
> nice
> > feature for our community.
> > I'm sure we will increase the ocm community size if we have a strong
> > annotation support.
> > Our first idea was to split the project but it add more complexity for
> > almost nothing. So, we decided to support only 1.5 for the ocm tools.
> >
> > br,
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > On 9/25/07, Padraic I. Hannon <pi...@wasabicowboy.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having support for JDK 1.4 (since the rest of jackrabbit will work
> with
> > > 1.4) should be maintained (otherwise I am dead in the water as I
> cannot
> > > get our ops guys to let us upgrade, a long story). That is my vote :-)
> > >
> > > -paddy
> > >
>
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Could we define a maven profile, which compiles for 1.4 but omits the
annotation stuff ? I could have a look at this, if you agree.
Regards
Felix
Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2007, 21:37 +0200 schrieb Christophe Lombart:
> Paddy,
>
> I understand your point of view but annotation support is certainly a nice
> feature for our community.
> I'm sure we will increase the ocm community size if we have a strong
> annotation support.
> Our first idea was to split the project but it add more complexity for
> almost nothing. So, we decided to support only 1.5 for the ocm tools.
>
> br,
> Christophe
>
>
> On 9/25/07, Padraic I. Hannon <pi...@wasabicowboy.com> wrote:
> >
> > Having support for JDK 1.4 (since the rest of jackrabbit will work with
> > 1.4) should be maintained (otherwise I am dead in the water as I cannot
> > get our ops guys to let us upgrade, a long story). That is my vote :-)
> >
> > -paddy
> >
Re: OCM status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
Paddy,
I understand your point of view but annotation support is certainly a nice
feature for our community.
I'm sure we will increase the ocm community size if we have a strong
annotation support.
Our first idea was to split the project but it add more complexity for
almost nothing. So, we decided to support only 1.5 for the ocm tools.
br,
Christophe
On 9/25/07, Padraic I. Hannon <pi...@wasabicowboy.com> wrote:
>
> Having support for JDK 1.4 (since the rest of jackrabbit will work with
> 1.4) should be maintained (otherwise I am dead in the water as I cannot
> get our ops guys to let us upgrade, a long story). That is my vote :-)
>
> -paddy
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by "Padraic I. Hannon" <pi...@wasabicowboy.com>.
Having support for JDK 1.4 (since the rest of jackrabbit will work with
1.4) should be maintained (otherwise I am dead in the water as I cannot
get our ops guys to let us upgrade, a long story). That is my vote :-)
-paddy
Re: OCM status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 9/25/07, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2007, 09:12 +0200 schrieb Christophe Lombart:
> > > +1 for removing the digester part :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > and what about your own impl with kxml ?
>
> Well, one of my next steps is to look into the annotation stuff and then
> I would propose - on the sling-dev list - to drop the kxml based impl,
> too :-) Otherwise, if there would be interest, we could also move the
> kxml based one to Jackrabbit-OCM.
>
> Maybe we might have to keep XML descriptor based support for backwards
> compatibility ?
yes at least for a couple of month :-)
Regards
> Felix
>
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2007, 09:12 +0200 schrieb Christophe Lombart:
> > +1 for removing the digester part :-)
>
>
>
> and what about your own impl with kxml ?
Well, one of my next steps is to look into the annotation stuff and then
I would propose - on the sling-dev list - to drop the kxml based impl,
too :-) Otherwise, if there would be interest, we could also move the
kxml based one to Jackrabbit-OCM.
Maybe we might have to keep XML descriptor based support for backwards
compatibility ?
Regards
Felix
Re: OCM status
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 9/25/07, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2007, 00:37 +0200 schrieb Christophe Lombart:
> > Digester mapper
> > impl can be dropped if nobody is using it. Personally, I plan to use the
> > annotation impl when it will be stable.
>
> +1 for removing the digester part :-)
and what about your own impl with kxml ?
> 2/ Jackrabbit dependencies have been dropped. it is used only in the unit
> > tests.
>
> Great !
>
> Just another note: I deployed a new snapshot of this state to the Apache
> Maven 2 SNAPSHOT repository for others to use it. Unfortunately, I had
> to switch of the continuum builds of OCM, as the jackrabbit continuum
> still uses Java 1.4 while OCM now requires 1.5 or higher.
I will add a new jira issue.
Regards
> Felix
>
>
Re: OCM status
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2007, 00:37 +0200 schrieb Christophe Lombart:
> Digester mapper
> impl can be dropped if nobody is using it. Personally, I plan to use the
> annotation impl when it will be stable.
+1 for removing the digester part :-)
> 2/ Jackrabbit dependencies have been dropped. it is used only in the unit
> tests.
Great !
Just another note: I deployed a new snapshot of this state to the Apache
Maven 2 SNAPSHOT repository for others to use it. Unfortunately, I had
to switch of the continuum builds of OCM, as the jackrabbit continuum
still uses Java 1.4 while OCM now requires 1.5 or higher.
Regards
Felix