You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2009/09/21 22:41:38 UTC
Proposed tranql svn reorganization
I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and just
bit myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of the
changes IDEA made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life clearer
and simpler.
1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which is
not really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca
connector framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to
separate them.
2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience in
the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with
separately versioned subprojects all under trunk.
So, I'd like to propose
ql/
+/branches
+/tags
+/trunk
ra/
+/branches
+/tags
+/trunk
Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual
vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags
will cause problems?
thanks
david jencks
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I've gone ahead and done this with the following changes from the
proposal:
1. I didn't change the query language at all, leaving it under tranql.
2. I left all the tags in place, since they are referred to by the
released poms.
All further connector development should take place in ra/trunk.
I've also pushed snapshots of all the connectors with the updated poms.
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and
> just bit myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of
> the changes IDEA made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life
> clearer and simpler.
>
> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which
> is not really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca
> connector framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to
> separate them.
>
> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience
> in the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with
> separately versioned subprojects all under trunk.
>
> So, I'd like to propose
>
> ql/
> +/branches
> +/tags
> +/trunk
>
> ra/
> +/branches
> +/tags
> +/trunk
>
>
> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual
> vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>
> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags
> will cause problems?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Flat structure like spec sounds good.
>
> Would there also be a common tranql-parent POM, or would they all
> use genesis?
I think a tranql-parent, like there is now. Tranql is not a geronimo
subproject, despite most of the discussion about it being here rather
than on the tranql dev list where it should be, so I'm not in favor of
using the geronimo parent pom for it.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <greensight@gmail.com <mailto:greensight@gmail.com
>>> >>
>>>
>>> I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently
>>> all the vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we
>>> are going to put them under the same folder, shall we bump them
>>> to
>>> the same version?
>>>
>>> So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update
>>> all the vendors' version?
>> Since the vendor wrappers are not built together, there is no need
>> for them to have the same version.
>> I was actually thinking further of:
>> - combining connector and connector-ra into a folder, perhaps
>> "generic"
>> - removing the "vendors" folder and having generic, derby, db2,
>> postgres,.... next to one another.
>> But even if we keep the vendors folder the versions don't have to
>> be related.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>>
>>> -Rex
>>>
>>>
>>> -Jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks
>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization
>>> and just bit myself by not being careful enough to check the
>>> extent of the changes IDEA made. I'd like to reorganize svn
>>> to make life clearer and simpler.
>>>
>>> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself
>>> which is not really under active development at the moment,
>>> and the j2ca connector framework which occasionally gets
>>> tweaked. I'd like to separate them.
>>>
>>> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our
>>> experience in the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has
>>> no problem with separately versioned subprojects all under
>>> trunk.
>>>
>>> So, I'd like to propose
>>>
>>> ql/
>>> +/branches
>>> +/tags
>>> +/trunk
>>>
>>> ra/
>>> +/branches
>>> +/tags
>>> +/trunk
>>>
>>>
>>> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the
>>> individual vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the
>>> existing
>>> tags will cause problems?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Flat structure like spec sounds good.
Would there also be a common tranql-parent POM, or would they all use
genesis?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <greensight@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>
>> I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently
>> all the vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we
>> are going to put them under the same folder, shall we bump them to
>> the same version?
>>
>> So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update all
>> the vendors' version?
>
> Since the vendor wrappers are not built together, there is no need for
> them to have the same version.
>
> I was actually thinking further of:
> - combining connector and connector-ra into a folder, perhaps "generic"
> - removing the "vendors" folder and having generic, derby, db2,
> postgres,.... next to one another.
>
> But even if we keep the vendors folder the versions don't have to be
> related.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> -Rex
>>
>>
>> -Jack
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks
>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization
>> and just bit myself by not being careful enough to check the
>> extent of the changes IDEA made. I'd like to reorganize svn
>> to make life clearer and simpler.
>>
>> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself
>> which is not really under active development at the moment,
>> and the j2ca connector framework which occasionally gets
>> tweaked. I'd like to separate them.
>>
>> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our
>> experience in the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has
>> no problem with separately versioned subprojects all under trunk.
>>
>> So, I'd like to propose
>>
>> ql/
>> +/branches
>> +/tags
>> +/trunk
>>
>> ra/
>> +/branches
>> +/tags
>> +/trunk
>>
>>
>> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the
>> individual vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>>
>> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing
>> tags will cause problems?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 22, 2009, at 12:57 AM, Jack Cai wrote:
> In this case, how do we do the tag? Just tag each invidiual vendor
> connector?
Yes, this is very similar to how the geronimo specs are released now.
thanks
david jencks
>
> -Jack
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM, David Jencks
> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>
>> I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently
>> all the vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we are
>> going to put them under the same folder, shall we bump them to the
>> same version?
>> So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update
>> all the vendors' version?
>
> Since the vendor wrappers are not built together, there is no need
> for them to have the same version.
>
> I was actually thinking further of:
> - combining connector and connector-ra into a folder, perhaps
> "generic"
> - removing the "vendors" folder and having generic, derby, db2,
> postgres,.... next to one another.
>
> But even if we keep the vendors folder the versions don't have to be
> related.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> -Rex
>>
>>
>> -Jack
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks
>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and
>> just bit myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of
>> the changes IDEA made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life
>> clearer and simpler.
>>
>> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which
>> is not really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca
>> connector framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to
>> separate them.
>>
>> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience
>> in the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with
>> separately versioned subprojects all under trunk.
>>
>> So, I'd like to propose
>>
>> ql/
>> +/branches
>> +/tags
>> +/trunk
>>
>> ra/
>> +/branches
>> +/tags
>> +/trunk
>>
>>
>> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the
>> individual vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>>
>> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags
>> will cause problems?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
In this case, how do we do the tag? Just tag each invidiual vendor
connector?
-Jack
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
>
>
> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>
>
>> I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently all the
>> vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we are going to put
>> them under the same folder, shall we bump them to the same version?
>>
> So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update all the
> vendors' version?
>
>
> Since the vendor wrappers are not built together, there is no need for them
> to have the same version.
>
> I was actually thinking further of:
> - combining connector and connector-ra into a folder, perhaps "generic"
> - removing the "vendors" folder and having generic, derby, db2,
> postgres,.... next to one another.
>
> But even if we keep the vendors folder the versions don't have to be
> related.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> -Rex
>
>
>> -Jack
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and just bit
>>> myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of the changes IDEA
>>> made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life clearer and simpler.
>>>
>>> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which is not
>>> really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca connector
>>> framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to separate them.
>>>
>>> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience in
>>> the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with separately
>>> versioned subprojects all under trunk.
>>>
>>> So, I'd like to propose
>>>
>>> ql/
>>> +/branches
>>> +/tags
>>> +/trunk
>>>
>>> ra/
>>> +/branches
>>> +/tags
>>> +/trunk
>>>
>>>
>>> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual
>>> vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags will
>>> cause problems?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
>
> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>
> I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently
> all the vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we are
> going to put them under the same folder, shall we bump them to the
> same version?
> So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update
> all the vendors' version?
Since the vendor wrappers are not built together, there is no need for
them to have the same version.
I was actually thinking further of:
- combining connector and connector-ra into a folder, perhaps "generic"
- removing the "vendors" folder and having generic, derby, db2,
postgres,.... next to one another.
But even if we keep the vendors folder the versions don't have to be
related.
thanks
david jencks
>
> -Rex
>
>
> -Jack
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks
> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and
> just bit myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of
> the changes IDEA made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life
> clearer and simpler.
>
> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which
> is not really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca
> connector framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to
> separate them.
>
> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience
> in the geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with
> separately versioned subprojects all under trunk.
>
> So, I'd like to propose
>
> ql/
> +/branches
> +/tags
> +/trunk
>
> ra/
> +/branches
> +/tags
> +/trunk
>
>
> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual
> vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>
> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags
> will cause problems?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>.
2009/9/22 Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>
> I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently all the
> vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we are going to put
> them under the same folder, shall we bump them to the same version?
>
So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update all the
vendors' version?
-Rex
> -Jack
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and just bit
>> myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of the changes IDEA
>> made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life clearer and simpler.
>>
>> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which is not
>> really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca connector
>> framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to separate them.
>>
>> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience in the
>> geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with separately
>> versioned subprojects all under trunk.
>>
>> So, I'd like to propose
>>
>> ql/
>> +/branches
>> +/tags
>> +/trunk
>>
>> ra/
>> +/branches
>> +/tags
>> +/trunk
>>
>>
>> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual
>> vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>>
>> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags will
>> cause problems?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>
Re: Proposed tranql svn reorganization
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently all the
vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we are going to put
them under the same folder, shall we bump them to the same version?
-Jack
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and just bit
> myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of the changes IDEA
> made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life clearer and simpler.
>
> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which is not
> really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca connector
> framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to separate them.
>
> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience in the
> geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with separately
> versioned subprojects all under trunk.
>
> So, I'd like to propose
>
> ql/
> +/branches
> +/tags
> +/trunk
>
> ra/
> +/branches
> +/tags
> +/trunk
>
>
> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual vendor
> directories such as derby, oracle, etc.
>
> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags will
> cause problems?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>