You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> on 2011/03/01 12:10:43 UTC
Re: Release by module - proposal?
Hi,
I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
need a distribution per module.
Alasdair
On 28 February 2011 11:36, zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
> something that is probably worth discussing.
>
> For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
>
> 1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
> different to bundle versions
> - We can release by module as we do now
> - Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
> BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
> - We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
> names
>
> 2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
> changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work together.
> - A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
> - Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
> - We don't release the same code over again
>
> I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
> http://people.apache.org/~zoe/TEST-org.apche.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip. It
> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>
> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>
> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in a
> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do. Just
> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
> (b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
> construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
> samples, but I haven't tried yet.
>
> Zoė
>
>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ezoe/TEST-org.apache.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip>
>
>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org
Re: Release by module - proposal?
Posted by zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com>.
On 01/03/2011 12:43, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
> On 1 March 2011 11:36, Guillaume Nodet<gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm really lost. I thought you absolutely wanted a per-bundle release
>> cycle and now you're advocating a single release with everything
>> inside. Could you please clarify ?
>>
> I'm not advocating a single release. I'm advocating having less
> distributions than Zoe's
> proposal requires. Zoe's proposal says we have a distribution per
> current module and I am
> suggesting we want less than that. A distribution that will give you
> everything you need for
> blueprint, a distribution with everything you need for applications etc.
I think I agree. So, I suggest that we'd do release by bundles, but have
the following 'distributions'
- blueprint (includes all of the aries-* jars that blueprint needs)
- application-runtime (includes all of the aries-* jars required for a
non-isolating runtime)
- application-runtime-isolated (includes all of the aries-* jars
required for a isolating runtime)
- samples (a distribution of the samples, including source, in which the
samples assembly projects include a specific set of aries bundles)
This makes more sense to me than including source in a distribution. And
I _think_ it meets the most likely users' requirement of knowing what
bundles the need.
Zoe
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:10, Alasdair Nottingham<no...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
>>> distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
>>> distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
>>> application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
>>> So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
>>> and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
>>> easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
>>> it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
>>> need a distribution per module.
>>>
>>> Alasdair
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2011 11:36, zoe slattery<zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
>>>> something that is probably worth discussing.
>>>>
>>>> For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
>>>>
>>>> 1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
>>>> different to bundle versions
>>>> - We can release by module as we do now
>>>> - Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
>>>> BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
>>>> - We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
>>>> names
>>>>
>>>> 2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
>>>> changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work together.
>>>> - A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
>>>> - Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
>>>> - We don't release the same code over again
>>>>
>>>> I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~zoe/TEST-org.apche.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip. It
>>>> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
>>>> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>>>>
>>>> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in a
>>>> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do. Just
>>>> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
>>>> (b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
>>>> construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
>>>> samples, but I haven't tried yet.
>>>>
>>>> Zoė
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ezoe/TEST-org.apache.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alasdair Nottingham
>>> not@apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>
>
Re: Release by module - proposal?
Posted by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org>.
On 1 March 2011 11:36, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm really lost. I thought you absolutely wanted a per-bundle release
> cycle and now you're advocating a single release with everything
> inside. Could you please clarify ?
>
I'm not advocating a single release. I'm advocating having less
distributions than Zoe's
proposal requires. Zoe's proposal says we have a distribution per
current module and I am
suggesting we want less than that. A distribution that will give you
everything you need for
blueprint, a distribution with everything you need for applications etc.
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:10, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
>> distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
>> distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
>> application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
>> So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
>> and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
>> easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
>> it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
>> need a distribution per module.
>>
>> Alasdair
>>
>> On 28 February 2011 11:36, zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
>>> something that is probably worth discussing.
>>>
>>> For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
>>>
>>> 1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
>>> different to bundle versions
>>> - We can release by module as we do now
>>> - Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
>>> BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
>>> - We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
>>> names
>>>
>>> 2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
>>> changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work together.
>>> - A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
>>> - Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
>>> - We don't release the same code over again
>>>
>>> I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
>>> http://people.apache.org/~zoe/TEST-org.apche.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip. It
>>> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
>>> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>>>
>>> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>>>
>>> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in a
>>> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do. Just
>>> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
>>> (b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
>>> construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
>>> samples, but I haven't tried yet.
>>>
>>> Zoė
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ezoe/TEST-org.apache.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alasdair Nottingham
>> not@apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org
Re: Release by module - proposal?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
I'm really lost. I thought you absolutely wanted a per-bundle release
cycle and now you're advocating a single release with everything
inside. Could you please clarify ?
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:10, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
> distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
> distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
> application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
> So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
> and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
> easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
> it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
> need a distribution per module.
>
> Alasdair
>
> On 28 February 2011 11:36, zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
>> something that is probably worth discussing.
>>
>> For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
>>
>> 1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
>> different to bundle versions
>> - We can release by module as we do now
>> - Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
>> BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
>> - We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
>> names
>>
>> 2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
>> changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work together.
>> - A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
>> - Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
>> - We don't release the same code over again
>>
>> I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
>> http://people.apache.org/~zoe/TEST-org.apche.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip. It
>> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
>> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>>
>> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>>
>> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in a
>> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do. Just
>> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
>> (b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
>> construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
>> samples, but I haven't tried yet.
>>
>> Zoė
>>
>>
>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ezoe/TEST-org.apache.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alasdair Nottingham
> not@apache.org
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: Release by module - proposal?
Posted by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org>.
On 1 March 2011 11:27, zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 11:10, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
>> distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
>> distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
>> application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
>> So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
>> and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
>> easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
>> it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
>> need a distribution per module.
>
> Right - when you say 'distribution' do you mean a collection of bundles that
> we know have been tested together? Or do you want source code in there as
> well?
I don't care about the source code. The source code is available via
the bundle releases. I really
see the distributions as an ease of use for getting our binaries.
> Would you have samples specific to each distribution?
I don't think so.
>
> Would you include anything other than org.apache.aries*
>
I don't know, I think it should be up for discussion.
> Z
>>
>> Alasdair
>>
>> On 28 February 2011 11:36, zoe slattery<zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
>>> something that is probably worth discussing.
>>>
>>> For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
>>>
>>> 1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
>>> different to bundle versions
>>> - We can release by module as we do now
>>> - Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
>>> BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
>>> - We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
>>> names
>>>
>>> 2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
>>> changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work
>>> together.
>>> - A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
>>> - Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
>>> - We don't release the same code over again
>>>
>>> I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
>>> http://people.apache.org/~zoe/TEST-org.apche.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip.
>>> It
>>> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
>>> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>>>
>>> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>>>
>>> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in
>>> a
>>> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do.
>>> Just
>>> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
>>> (b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
>>> construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
>>> samples, but I haven't tried yet.
>>>
>>> Zoė
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ezoe/TEST-org.apache.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org
Re: Release by module - proposal?
Posted by zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com>.
On 01/03/2011 11:10, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
> distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
> distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
> application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
> So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
> and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
> easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
> it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
> need a distribution per module.
Right - when you say 'distribution' do you mean a collection of bundles
that we know have been tested together? Or do you want source code in
there as well?
Would you have samples specific to each distribution?
Would you include anything other than org.apache.aries*
Z
> Alasdair
>
> On 28 February 2011 11:36, zoe slattery<zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
>> something that is probably worth discussing.
>>
>> For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
>>
>> 1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
>> different to bundle versions
>> - We can release by module as we do now
>> - Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
>> BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
>> - We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
>> names
>>
>> 2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
>> changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work together.
>> - A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
>> - Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
>> - We don't release the same code over again
>>
>> I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
>> http://people.apache.org/~zoe/TEST-org.apche.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip. It
>> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
>> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>>
>> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>>
>> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in a
>> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do. Just
>> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
>> (b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
>> construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
>> samples, but I haven't tried yet.
>>
>> Zoė
>>
>>
>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ezoe/TEST-org.apache.aries.proxy-distro-0.8.zip>
>>
>>
>
>