What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

we call it "beanutils-core" and maven calls it "beanutils". Should I go 
ahead and unify the two or anybody has a better idea?

-- 
Stefano.

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>]

On 8 Nov 2004, at 23:58, Brett Porter wrote:

> I've been meaning to reply to this in kind.
>
> If a project splits itself into three, should gump really try and map
> projects depending on an older version to these? I know you are
> experimenting with the latest and greatest, but this might be the
> point where you start maintaining beanutils-1.6.x and
> beanutils-*-1.7.x in gump and projects can migrate on their own (gump
> could encourage those left on the old one to do so, but not require it
> to keep running).

this was discussed at the time and the consensus was that the right 
thing for gump to do was to move everyone onto the new jar's. (unless 
i've missed something) gump's always aimed at bringing the latest and 
greatest code together.

a primary reason why beanutils was split into a modular jar system was 
so that gump (and anyone else trying to use the latest versions) would 
not run into difficulties with the two incompatible series of commons 
collections releases. at the time, it seemed best to migrate all 
projects (rather than having rely on nagging messages) and i think that 
this decision has been proved right.

i suppose that the bigger issue is who owns the gump descriptors: the 
individual projects or gump...

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

I've been meaning to reply to this in kind.

If a project splits itself into three, should gump really try and map
projects depending on an older version to these? I know you are
experimenting with the latest and greatest, but this might be the
point where you start maintaining beanutils-1.6.x and
beanutils-*-1.7.x in gump and projects can migrate on their own (gump
could encourage those left on the old one to do so, but not require it
to keep running).

- Brett

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:10:14 +0000, robert burrell donkin
<rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> (sorry for being a little late to the party)
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 Nov 2004, at 20:18, Brett Porter wrote:
> 
> >>> - projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
> >>> allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for
> >>> them). So beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils
> >>
> >> I understand the part about projects declaring aliases (we may even
> >> need to do that on the artifact level IMHO).  I don't understand why
> >> Maven needs to know about those at all - other than the Gump plugin,
> >> maybe.
> >
> > I'm thinking of the case where a project name changes, and the aliases
> > are project metadata. I'm not talking about gump names changing - I'm
> > talking about the artifactID changing over time (as was the case with
> > beanutils).
> 
> sadly, beanutils is not so simple.
> 
> the artifact id had to be changed in any case to fit in with the new
> artifact naming conventions (or so it appeared at the time that the
> release was cut) but three artifact ids were always going to be needed:
> two new ones for the modular jar's with simple dependencies and the old
> one for the combined jar. the gump descriptors were tested then
> migrated to commons-beanutils-core (it seemed that no other projects
> used the classes moved into commons-beanutils-collections).
> 
> however, the route of least resistance seems to be for gump to forget
> that the combined distribution exists and use a alias. in any case,
> projects should really be migrating to the new modular jar's (they have
> much simpler dependencies) when they upgrade their dependencies...
> 
> - robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org
> 
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>]

FWIW, part of Jelly uses commons-beanutils-collections.


On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:10:14 +0000, robert burrell donkin
<rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> (sorry for being a little late to the party)
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 Nov 2004, at 20:18, Brett Porter wrote:
> 
> >>> - projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
> >>> allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for
> >>> them). So beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils
> >>
> >> I understand the part about projects declaring aliases (we may even
> >> need to do that on the artifact level IMHO).  I don't understand why
> >> Maven needs to know about those at all - other than the Gump plugin,
> >> maybe.
> >
> > I'm thinking of the case where a project name changes, and the aliases
> > are project metadata. I'm not talking about gump names changing - I'm
> > talking about the artifactID changing over time (as was the case with
> > beanutils).
> 
> sadly, beanutils is not so simple.
> 
> the artifact id had to be changed in any case to fit in with the new
> artifact naming conventions (or so it appeared at the time that the
> release was cut) but three artifact ids were always going to be needed:
> two new ones for the modular jar's with simple dependencies and the old
> one for the combined jar. the gump descriptors were tested then
> migrated to commons-beanutils-core (it seemed that no other projects
> used the classes moved into commons-beanutils-collections).
> 
> however, the route of least resistance seems to be for gump to forget
> that the combined distribution exists and use a alias. in any case,
> projects should really be migrating to the new modular jar's (they have
> much simpler dependencies) when they upgrade their dependencies...
> 
> - robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>]

(sorry for being a little late to the party)

On 2 Nov 2004, at 20:18, Brett Porter wrote:

>>> - projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
>>> allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for
>>> them). So beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils
>>
>> I understand the part about projects declaring aliases (we may even
>> need to do that on the artifact level IMHO).  I don't understand why
>> Maven needs to know about those at all - other than the Gump plugin,
>> maybe.
>
> I'm thinking of the case where a project name changes, and the aliases
> are project metadata. I'm not talking about gump names changing - I'm
> talking about the artifactID changing over time (as was the case with
> beanutils).

sadly, beanutils is not so simple.

the artifact id had to be changed in any case to fit in with the new 
artifact naming conventions (or so it appeared at the time that the 
release was cut) but three artifact ids were always going to be needed: 
two new ones for the modular jar's with simple dependencies and the old 
one for the combined jar. the gump descriptors were tested then 
migrated to commons-beanutils-core (it seemed that no other projects 
used the classes moved into commons-beanutils-collections).

however, the route of least resistance seems to be for gump to forget 
that the combined distribution exists and use a alias. in any case, 
projects should really be migrating to the new modular jar's (they have 
much simpler dependencies) when they upgrade their dependencies...

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

> > - projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
> > allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for
> > them). So beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils
> 
> I understand the part about projects declaring aliases (we may even
> need to do that on the artifact level IMHO).  I don't understand why
> Maven needs to know about those at all - other than the Gump plugin,
> maybe.  

I'm thinking of the case where a project name changes, and the aliases
are project metadata. I'm not talking about gump names changing - I'm
talking about the artifactID changing over time (as was the case with
beanutils).

> I'm absolutely willing to maintain these aliases on an
> as-needed basis.

That sounds like the 3rd solution, however it seems the 1st worked anyway :)

> > - we don't do anything. When a project changes name, they accept
> > they are going to break projects and they have to catch
> > up.
> 
> But have the projects chosen the name?  I mean, is it the project's
> fault if the name we (Gump) assign to it and the one Maven uses for it
> are different?  Has the project itself any say in either of both?

Sorry for mixing up words,  Iwas talking about artifactId that the
project chooses.

- Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> It's been my understanding that right now the artifact id is more
> important than the project name.  Is this wrong?
> 
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>- gump has a dummy project "beanutils" that depends just on
>>beanutils-core. I don't think this works with Maven though.
> 
> 
> If it works for Maven, then let's just do that since it is the least
> intrusive.

Already done. ;-)

-- 
Stefano.

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

It's been my understanding that right now the artifact id is more
important than the project name.  Is this wrong?

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:

> - gump has a dummy project "beanutils" that depends just on
> beanutils-core. I don't think this works with Maven though.

If it works for Maven, then let's just do that since it is the least
intrusive.

> - projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
> allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for
> them). So beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils

I understand the part about projects declaring aliases (we may even
need to do that on the artifact level IMHO).  I don't understand why
Maven needs to know about those at all - other than the Gump plugin,
maybe.  I'm absolutely willing to maintain these aliases on an
as-needed basis.

> - we don't do anything. When a project changes name, they accept
> they are going to break projects and they have to catch
> up.

But have the projects chosen the name?  I mean, is it the project's
fault if the name we (Gump) assign to it and the one Maven uses for it
are different?  Has the project itself any say in either of both?

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

RE: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Eric Pugh <ep...@opensourceconnections.com>]

Brett,
It seems like #2 is the cleanest way regardless of how the details of it are
implemented.

If the POM change is too much, we could just add the various "alias" names
to project.properties.  Or, alternatively, say tough luck, you changed your
name, Maven can't generate the Gump descriptor.

#3 seems like if we are to do that, then the gump plugin should really move
to gump CVS so that gump people can maintain this plugin.  Or, at least,
dynamically pull in the mapping file from Gump's website/cvs.


I'd argue that tracking that kind of thing is a useful beyond just Gump
anyway and should be in the POM.   I have a versions plugin that checks if
you have the latest and greatest of an artifact.  But, if the artifact
changes names, there is no repo for that data.

Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:brett.porter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 2:58 AM
> To: Gump code and data
> Subject: Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?
>
>
> Ok, we need a solution for when a project changes names. There have
> been suggestions in the past, let's round them up:
>
> - gump has a dummy project "beanutils" that depends just on
> beanutils-core. I don't think this works with Maven though.
>
> - projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
> allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for them). So
> beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils
>
> - we don't do any gump solutions, and we maintain the big mapping file
> in the maven gump plugin, so it can change the dependencies when
> converting the gump descriptor. We look to store that mapping file in
> gump, instead.
>
> - we don't do anything. When a project changes name, they accept they
> are going to break projects and they have to catch up. Possibly, the
> previous version keeps the name so that projects keep building?
> (others have more passionate feelings about how gump should behave in
> this way I think, so I'll leave that to them).
>
> Thoughts? (2) seems the best if possible on the gump end. Both (2) and
> (3) are easy from the maven end.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:29:32 -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi
> <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > we call it "beanutils-core" and maven calls it "beanutils". Should I go
> > ahead and unify the two or anybody has a better idea?
> >
> > --
> > Stefano.
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

Ok, we need a solution for when a project changes names. There have
been suggestions in the past, let's round them up:

- gump has a dummy project "beanutils" that depends just on
beanutils-core. I don't think this works with Maven though.

- projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for them). So
beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils

- we don't do any gump solutions, and we maintain the big mapping file
in the maven gump plugin, so it can change the dependencies when
converting the gump descriptor. We look to store that mapping file in
gump, instead.

- we don't do anything. When a project changes name, they accept they
are going to break projects and they have to catch up. Possibly, the
previous version keeps the name so that projects keep building?
(others have more passionate feelings about how gump should behave in
this way I think, so I'll leave that to them).

Thoughts? (2) seems the best if possible on the gump end. Both (2) and
(3) are easy from the maven end.

Cheers,
Brett

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:29:32 -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi
<st...@apache.org> wrote:
> we call it "beanutils-core" and maven calls it "beanutils". Should I go
> ahead and unify the two or anybody has a better idea?
> 
> --
> Stefano.
> 
> 
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org