Make "framework" build the entire framework server

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I'd like to play around with trying to make gbeans less restrictive  
and possibly some classloading ideas.  This would be a lot easier if I  
had a smaller project to deal with.  So, I'd like to make it so that  
framework is self contained and builds the entire framework server.  I  
haven't looked at this too closely recently but I think it involves:

moving all or part of buildsupport into framework (at least car-maven- 
plugin)
moving the framework plugingroup into framework
moving the boilerplate and framework assemblies into framework.

I suggested this a few months back (sept 23 2008) and there were some  
objections I didn't fully understand.  Right now I'm sure this would  
make my day to day development life a lot easier so if there are  
objections I'd really appreciate knowing how specifically this would  
make your day to day development life harder.

thanks
david jencks

Re: Make "framework" build the entire framework server

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I did the basic reorganization in rev 746112.  We probably want to  
change some groupIds if everyone is OK with the change.


On Feb 18, 2009, at 4:46 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:15 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds worth the time to try it out.
>>>
>>> Two requests:
>>> 1) If this works, we publish the framework assembly instead of the  
>>> two minimal assemblies to the Download page for 2.2, as this would  
>>> allow users to build their own custom minimal server assembly (and  
>>> of course some docs telling users how to create the old minimal  
>>> assembly from this new framework assembly.)
>>
>> I'm neutral or slightly +0.1 on this idea.  I don't actually see  
>> how it relates to my proposal but if everyone agrees I'm fine with  
>> this idea.
>
> Less = more IMO, so I'm +1

I guess this should be a separate vote...
>
>
>
>>> 2) If time permits, can we move or duplicate relevant testsuite  
>>> modules into a new testsuite dir under either the framework dir or  
>>> a new framework-testsuite dir, so that we can verify the basic  
>>> framework cmdline scripts and installing plugins (like Jetty/ 
>>> Tomcat to make an equivalent minimal assembly)?
>>
>> I like this idea.  For a few months now when I work on a plugin set  
>> (mconsole, activemq) I've included a custom server aseembly in the  
>> plugin group and added at least one integration test.  This has  
>> really helped speed up feature development.  IIUC you are proposing  
>> doing the same for framework.
>
> Sure, +1
I haven't done this yet.  I don't think we have any integration tests  
that run on framework yet.  I'll probably come up with some simple  
ones soon.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> --jason
>

Re: Make "framework" build the entire framework server

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:15 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Sounds worth the time to try it out.
>>
>> Two requests:
>> 1) If this works, we publish the framework assembly instead of the  
>> two minimal assemblies to the Download page for 2.2, as this would  
>> allow users to build their own custom minimal server assembly (and  
>> of course some docs telling users how to create the old minimal  
>> assembly from this new framework assembly.)
>
> I'm neutral or slightly +0.1 on this idea.  I don't actually see how  
> it relates to my proposal but if everyone agrees I'm fine with this  
> idea.

Less = more IMO, so I'm +1


>> 2) If time permits, can we move or duplicate relevant testsuite  
>> modules into a new testsuite dir under either the framework dir or  
>> a new framework-testsuite dir, so that we can verify the basic  
>> framework cmdline scripts and installing plugins (like Jetty/Tomcat  
>> to make an equivalent minimal assembly)?
>
> I like this idea.  For a few months now when I work on a plugin set  
> (mconsole, activemq) I've included a custom server aseembly in the  
> plugin group and added at least one integration test.  This has  
> really helped speed up feature development.  IIUC you are proposing  
> doing the same for framework.

Sure, +1

--jason

Re: Make "framework" build the entire framework server

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Donald Woods wrote:

> Sounds worth the time to try it out.
>
> Two requests:
> 1) If this works, we publish the framework assembly instead of the  
> two minimal assemblies to the Download page for 2.2, as this would  
> allow users to build their own custom minimal server assembly (and  
> of course some docs telling users how to create the old minimal  
> assembly from this new framework assembly.)

I'm neutral or slightly +0.1 on this idea.  I don't actually see how  
it relates to my proposal but if everyone agrees I'm fine with this  
idea.
>
> 2) If time permits, can we move or duplicate relevant testsuite  
> modules into a new testsuite dir under either the framework dir or a  
> new framework-testsuite dir, so that we can verify the basic  
> framework cmdline scripts and installing plugins (like Jetty/Tomcat  
> to make an equivalent minimal assembly)?

I like this idea.  For a few months now when I work on a plugin set  
(mconsole, activemq) I've included a custom server aseembly in the  
plugin group and added at least one integration test.  This has really  
helped speed up feature development.  IIUC you are proposing doing the  
same for framework.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> I'd like to play around with trying to make gbeans less restrictive  
>> and possibly some classloading ideas.  This would be a lot easier  
>> if I had a smaller project to deal with.  So, I'd like to make it  
>> so that framework is self contained and builds the entire framework  
>> server.  I haven't looked at this too closely recently but I think  
>> it involves:
>> moving all or part of buildsupport into framework (at least car- 
>> maven-plugin)
>> moving the framework plugingroup into framework
>> moving the boilerplate and framework assemblies into framework.
>> I suggested this a few months back (sept 23 2008) and there were  
>> some objections I didn't fully understand.  Right now I'm sure this  
>> would make my day to day development life a lot easier so if there  
>> are objections I'd really appreciate knowing how specifically this  
>> would make your day to day development life harder.
>> thanks
>> david jencks

Re: Make "framework" build the entire framework server

[Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>]

Sounds worth the time to try it out.

Two requests:
1) If this works, we publish the framework assembly instead of the two 
minimal assemblies to the Download page for 2.2, as this would allow 
users to build their own custom minimal server assembly (and of course 
some docs telling users how to create the old minimal assembly from this 
new framework assembly.)
2) If time permits, can we move or duplicate relevant testsuite modules 
into a new testsuite dir under either the framework dir or a new 
framework-testsuite dir, so that we can verify the basic framework 
cmdline scripts and installing plugins (like Jetty/Tomcat to make an 
equivalent minimal assembly)?


-Donald


David Jencks wrote:
> I'd like to play around with trying to make gbeans less restrictive and 
> possibly some classloading ideas.  This would be a lot easier if I had a 
> smaller project to deal with.  So, I'd like to make it so that framework 
> is self contained and builds the entire framework server.  I haven't 
> looked at this too closely recently but I think it involves:
> 
> moving all or part of buildsupport into framework (at least 
> car-maven-plugin)
> moving the framework plugingroup into framework
> moving the boilerplate and framework assemblies into framework.
> 
> I suggested this a few months back (sept 23 2008) and there were some 
> objections I didn't fully understand.  Right now I'm sure this would 
> make my day to day development life a lot easier so if there are 
> objections I'd really appreciate knowing how specifically this would 
> make your day to day development life harder.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
>