You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> on 2007/05/18 11:29:40 UTC
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples
with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to
want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make
that easy for them? It's not very useful for the SDO binary
distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to
download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a
little clumsy. I do think it would be good to simplify the set of
distribution files to a source and a binary distribution.
So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_
distribution would include sample _source_. We could ship the sample
binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the
fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user.
So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common
denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of
classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a
presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven.
Perhaps the binary distributions should include
- the sample source
- binary samples ready to run
- a generic description of how to build the samples
- a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
son how to get maven going
- javadoc for the API
However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray
slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom
files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated.
Kelvin.
On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the DAS
> distributed artifacts.
>
> We currently have the following distributions :
> - Source : have das source implementation (M2)
> - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2)
> - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached source
> code and derby canned database (M2)
> - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2)
>
> Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like :
>
> - Source : DAS source implementation
> - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples
> binaries and derby canned database + javadoc
>
>
> My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the binary
> distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample
> distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2 times
> the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new samples
> done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of view.
> I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of the
> binary distribution.
>
> Please, express your thoughts..
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
I have updated the DAS distributions to work as proposed under revision
#539815, this should be aligned with the SCA and SDO proposed distributions,
the only difference being that, the samples on the binary distribution have
source code attached to the binary distributions, instead of having the
actual sample sources to build.
On 5/19/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I thought more about this subject, and I think I'm OK with the
> following distributions :
>
> source : all sources for implementation and samples
>
> binary : implementation binaries and dependencies + javadoc + samples
> binaries
> \lib -> api implementation and dependency
> \doc -> javadocs
> \samples\<sample name> -> sample ready to run (might have source
> attached inside jar/war)
>
> Would that be OK ?
>
> On 5/18/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Comments in-line
> >
> > On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
> > >
> > > I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples
> > > with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to
> > > want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make
> > > that easy for them?
> >
> >
> > DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source
> > code allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also,
> > could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with
> > source.
> >
> > It's not very useful for the SDO binary
> > > distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to
> > > download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a
> > > little clumsy.
> >
> >
> > As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this
> > issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that
> > supports J2EE applications.
> >
> > I do think it would be good to simplify the set of
> > > distribution files to a source and a binary distribution.
> >
> > So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_
> > > distribution would include sample _source_.
> >
> >
> > Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and
> > source distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source
> >
> > We could ship the sample
> > > binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the
> > >
> > > fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user.
> > > So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common
> > > denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of
> > > classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a
> > > presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> > > - the sample source
> > > - binary samples ready to run
> > > - a generic description of how to build the samples
> > > - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> > > son how to get maven going
> > > - javadoc for the API
> >
> >
> > Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has
> > sources and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be
> > huge, as we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the
> > samples.
> >
> > However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray
> > > slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom
> > > files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated.
> > >
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende < luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change
> > > the DAS
> > > > distributed artifacts.
> > > >
> > > > We currently have the following distributions :
> > > > - Source : have das source implementation (M2)
> > > > - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies
> > > (M2)
> > > > - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached
> > > source
> > > > code and derby canned database (M2)
> > > > - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2)
> > > >
> > > > Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like :
> > > >
> > > > - Source : DAS source implementation
> > > > - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies +
> > > samples
> > > > binaries and derby canned database + javadoc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the
> > > binary
> > > > distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample
> > > > distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then
> > > 2 times
> > > > the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new
> > > samples
> > > > done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point
> > > of view.
> > > > I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part
> > > of the
> > > > binary distribution.
> > > >
> > > > Please, express your thoughts..
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
I have updated the DAS distributions to work as proposed under revision
#539815, this should be aligned with the SCA and SDO proposed distributions,
the only difference being that, the samples on the binary distribution have
source code attached to the binary distributions, instead of having the
actual sample sources to build.
On 5/19/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I thought more about this subject, and I think I'm OK with the
> following distributions :
>
> source : all sources for implementation and samples
>
> binary : implementation binaries and dependencies + javadoc + samples
> binaries
> \lib -> api implementation and dependency
> \doc -> javadocs
> \samples\<sample name> -> sample ready to run (might have source
> attached inside jar/war)
>
> Would that be OK ?
>
> On 5/18/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Comments in-line
> >
> > On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
> > >
> > > I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples
> > > with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to
> > > want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make
> > > that easy for them?
> >
> >
> > DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source
> > code allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also,
> > could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with
> > source.
> >
> > It's not very useful for the SDO binary
> > > distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to
> > > download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a
> > > little clumsy.
> >
> >
> > As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this
> > issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that
> > supports J2EE applications.
> >
> > I do think it would be good to simplify the set of
> > > distribution files to a source and a binary distribution.
> >
> > So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_
> > > distribution would include sample _source_.
> >
> >
> > Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and
> > source distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source
> >
> > We could ship the sample
> > > binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the
> > >
> > > fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user.
> > > So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common
> > > denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of
> > > classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a
> > > presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> > > - the sample source
> > > - binary samples ready to run
> > > - a generic description of how to build the samples
> > > - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> > > son how to get maven going
> > > - javadoc for the API
> >
> >
> > Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has
> > sources and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be
> > huge, as we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the
> > samples.
> >
> > However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray
> > > slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom
> > > files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated.
> > >
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende < luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change
> > > the DAS
> > > > distributed artifacts.
> > > >
> > > > We currently have the following distributions :
> > > > - Source : have das source implementation (M2)
> > > > - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies
> > > (M2)
> > > > - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached
> > > source
> > > > code and derby canned database (M2)
> > > > - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2)
> > > >
> > > > Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like :
> > > >
> > > > - Source : DAS source implementation
> > > > - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies +
> > > samples
> > > > binaries and derby canned database + javadoc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the
> > > binary
> > > > distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample
> > > > distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then
> > > 2 times
> > > > the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new
> > > samples
> > > > done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point
> > > of view.
> > > > I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part
> > > of the
> > > > binary distribution.
> > > >
> > > > Please, express your thoughts..
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Well, I thought more about this subject, and I think I'm OK with the
following distributions :
source : all sources for implementation and samples
binary : implementation binaries and dependencies + javadoc + samples
binaries
\lib -> api implementation and dependency
\doc -> javadocs
\samples\<sample name> -> sample ready to run (might have source attached
inside jar/war)
Would that be OK ?
On 5/18/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Comments in-line
>
> On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
> >
> > I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples
> > with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to
> > want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make
> > that easy for them?
>
>
> DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source code
> allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also,
> could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with
> source.
>
> It's not very useful for the SDO binary
> > distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to
> > download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a
> > little clumsy.
>
>
> As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this
> issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that
> supports J2EE applications.
>
> I do think it would be good to simplify the set of
> > distribution files to a source and a binary distribution.
>
> So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_
> > distribution would include sample _source_.
>
>
> Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and source
> distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source
>
> We could ship the sample
> > binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the
> > fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user.
> > So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common
> > denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of
> > classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a
> > presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven.
> >
> > Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> > - the sample source
> > - binary samples ready to run
> > - a generic description of how to build the samples
> > - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> > son how to get maven going
> > - javadoc for the API
>
>
> Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has
> sources and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be
> huge, as we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the
> samples.
>
> However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray
> > slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom
> > files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated.
> >
> > Kelvin.
> >
> > On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change
> > the DAS
> > > distributed artifacts.
> > >
> > > We currently have the following distributions :
> > > - Source : have das source implementation (M2)
> > > - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2)
> > > - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached
> > source
> > > code and derby canned database (M2)
> > > - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2)
> > >
> > > Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like :
> > >
> > > - Source : DAS source implementation
> > > - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies +
> > samples
> > > binaries and derby canned database + javadoc
> > >
> > >
> > > My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the
> > binary
> > > distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample
> > > distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2
> > times
> > > the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new
> > samples
> > > done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of
> > view.
> > > I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of
> > the
> > > binary distribution.
> > >
> > > Please, express your thoughts..
> > >
> > > [1]
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luciano Resende
> > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Well, I thought more about this subject, and I think I'm OK with the
following distributions :
source : all sources for implementation and samples
binary : implementation binaries and dependencies + javadoc + samples
binaries
\lib -> api implementation and dependency
\doc -> javadocs
\samples\<sample name> -> sample ready to run (might have source attached
inside jar/war)
Would that be OK ?
On 5/18/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Comments in-line
>
> On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
> >
> > I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples
> > with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to
> > want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make
> > that easy for them?
>
>
> DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source code
> allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also,
> could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with
> source.
>
> It's not very useful for the SDO binary
> > distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to
> > download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a
> > little clumsy.
>
>
> As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this
> issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that
> supports J2EE applications.
>
> I do think it would be good to simplify the set of
> > distribution files to a source and a binary distribution.
>
> So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_
> > distribution would include sample _source_.
>
>
> Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and source
> distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source
>
> We could ship the sample
> > binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the
> > fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user.
> > So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common
> > denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of
> > classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a
> > presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven.
> >
> > Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> > - the sample source
> > - binary samples ready to run
> > - a generic description of how to build the samples
> > - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> > son how to get maven going
> > - javadoc for the API
>
>
> Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has
> sources and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be
> huge, as we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the
> samples.
>
> However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray
> > slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom
> > files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated.
> >
> > Kelvin.
> >
> > On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change
> > the DAS
> > > distributed artifacts.
> > >
> > > We currently have the following distributions :
> > > - Source : have das source implementation (M2)
> > > - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2)
> > > - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached
> > source
> > > code and derby canned database (M2)
> > > - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2)
> > >
> > > Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like :
> > >
> > > - Source : DAS source implementation
> > > - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies +
> > samples
> > > binaries and derby canned database + javadoc
> > >
> > >
> > > My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the
> > binary
> > > distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample
> > > distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2
> > times
> > > the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new
> > samples
> > > done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of
> > view.
> > > I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of
> > the
> > > binary distribution.
> > >
> > > Please, express your thoughts..
> > >
> > > [1]
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luciano Resende
> > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Comments in-line
On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
>
> I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples
> with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to
> want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make
> that easy for them?
DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source code
allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also,
could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with
source.
It's not very useful for the SDO binary
> distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to
> download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a
> little clumsy.
As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this
issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that
supports J2EE applications.
I do think it would be good to simplify the set of
> distribution files to a source and a binary distribution.
So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_
> distribution would include sample _source_.
Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and source
distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source
We could ship the sample
> binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the
> fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user.
> So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common
> denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of
> classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a
> presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven.
>
> Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> - the sample source
> - binary samples ready to run
> - a generic description of how to build the samples
> - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> son how to get maven going
> - javadoc for the API
Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has sources
and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be huge, as
we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the samples.
However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray
> slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom
> files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated.
>
> Kelvin.
>
> On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the
> DAS
> > distributed artifacts.
> >
> > We currently have the following distributions :
> > - Source : have das source implementation (M2)
> > - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2)
> > - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached
> source
> > code and derby canned database (M2)
> > - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2)
> >
> > Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like :
> >
> > - Source : DAS source implementation
> > - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples
> > binaries and derby canned database + javadoc
> >
> >
> > My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the
> binary
> > distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample
> > distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2
> times
> > the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new
> samples
> > done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of
> view.
> > I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of
> the
> > binary distribution.
> >
> > Please, express your thoughts..
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> - the sample source
> - binary samples ready to run
> - a generic description of how to build the samples
> - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> son how to get maven going
> - javadoc for the API
+1
This is exactly what the Tuscany SCA 0.90 release looks like (it
additionally also includes Ant build scripts to build and run the samples).
For simplicity and consistency I think it would be really good if we can
make all the Tuscany sub-projects look like this.
...ant
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Comments in-line
On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Switching this to tuscany-users to solicit user community input.
>
> I think I need some clarification of what it means to ship the samples
> with the binary distribution. One of the key things a user is going to
> want to do is to modify and rebuild the samples, so how do we make
> that easy for them?
DAS sample is currently a web-app, so building a war file with source code
allows for simple installation on any web application server, and also,
could be easily imported in any IDE and modified, as it's a war with
source.
It's not very useful for the SDO binary
> distribution to ship binary samples only. Requiring the user to
> download the full source distribution to get the sample source seems a
> little clumsy.
As I mentioned above, the war with source included seems to solve this
issue, as it's binary, but simple to import and modify in any IDE that
supports J2EE applications.
I do think it would be good to simplify the set of
> distribution files to a source and a binary distribution.
So I would propose that future changes to the SDO _binary_
> distribution would include sample _source_.
Even if we really decide for this, I'd like to keep the binary and source
distributions to keep to it's name, and don't mix binary with source
We could ship the sample
> binaries in the binary distribution too, and that would get round the
> fact that we can't presuppose the development environment of a user.
> So far SDO, in its sample distribution has gone for a lowest common
> denominator approach of describing what must be, in terms of
> classpath etc, rather than "how to" that would require a
> presupposition of the build environment, e.g. maven.
>
> Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> - the sample source
> - binary samples ready to run
> - a generic description of how to build the samples
> - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> son how to get maven going
> - javadoc for the API
Isn't it very strange that you get a binary distribution, and it has sources
and instructions to build ? Also, in the case of DAS, it will be huge, as
we ship the canned derby db in order to a user be able to run the samples.
However, a significant concern I have is that if our builds stray
> slightly from maven's archetypal project nature then the maven pom
> files generally tend to become disproportionately complicated.
>
> Kelvin.
>
> On 17/05/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In this week DAS release IRC chat [1], Ant had a proposal to change the
> DAS
> > distributed artifacts.
> >
> > We currently have the following distributions :
> > - Source : have das source implementation (M2)
> > - BInary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies (M2)
> > - Sample : sample applications in binary form (war) with attached
> source
> > code and derby canned database (M2)
> > - Javadoc : DAS implementation javadoc (new after M2)
> >
> > Ant's proposal would make the distribution layout probably like :
> >
> > - Source : DAS source implementation
> > - Binary : have DAS binaries and all necessary dependencies + samples
> > binaries and derby canned database + javadoc
> >
> >
> > My personal opinion is that, combining the sample together with the
> binary
> > distribution would pollute the binary distribution, as the sample
> > distribution ship derby canned databases and is currently more then 2
> times
> > the size of the binary distribution, without incorporating the new
> samples
> > done for the current release, but I'm open for the community point of
> view.
> > I'm probably ok to have javadoc distribution incorporated as part of
> the
> > binary distribution.
> >
> > Please, express your thoughts..
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg17832.html
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DAS] Release distributions - PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK (Original posted on tuscany-dev)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 5/18/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the binary distributions should include
> - the sample source
> - binary samples ready to run
> - a generic description of how to build the samples
> - a maven pom file that rebuilds the samples, along with instruction
> son how to get maven going
> - javadoc for the API
+1
This is exactly what the Tuscany SCA 0.90 release looks like (it
additionally also includes Ant build scripts to build and run the samples).
For simplicity and consistency I think it would be really good if we can
make all the Tuscany sub-projects look like this.
...ant