Release packaging [Was: [VOTE] 3.0M5 Release]

[Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>]

Renaming the thread.


On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:20 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:

> 1. I've never known what "dotemplates" means. Could we rename that  
> to something more obvious like "entity templates"

"Data Object Templates" :-) Anyways, the name is misleading. I don't  
mind if we rename it to something else. "cgen-templates", or something  
like that.

> 2. Is v1_2 confusing since it doesn't match the Cayenne versioning  
> and there isn't any sense of how 1.2 relates to 3.0M5.

Since we likely won't be upgrading templates for each and every  
release, the a mismatch between the templates version and Cayenne  
version is sort of natural (not that I like it)... The only place  
where it is exposed to the user is the "version" attribute of cgen,  
where it is marked as deprecated:

http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/cgen.html


> 3. Can we get rid of the deprecated templates outside the 1.2 folder  
> which really shouldn't be offered for use. If people are already  
> using old templates, then let's support them, but let's not  
> encourage their use.

If we support the deprecated template, we have to include it in the  
distro somewhere.

> 4. Should we create a schema for the Cayenne XML format? It should  
> be quite simple I think and Cayenne modeler could even perform  
> integrity checking to ensure generated models match the schema.

+1. Formalizing the format is good idea. Somebody has to do it though.

> 5. There should be separation of the third-party libraries into  
> separate folders. Some are needed by Cayenne core, some only by the  
> modeler or cgen (eg velocity) and one by JPA.

I think it is not worth the maintenance trouble. The intention of each  
library is well documented in the user guide, and we can run into  
categorization overlap issues and such.

Andrus

Re: Release packaging

[Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>]

On Dec 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:

>> On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:20 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I've never known what "dotemplates" means. Could we rename that  
>>> to something more obvious like "entity templates"
>>
>> "Data Object Templates" :-) Anyways, the name is misleading. I  
>> don't mind if we rename it to something else. "cgen-templates", or  
>> something like that.
>
>
> Great. I still like "entity templates" but anything is better than  
> what I thought for years was "dot templates".

We also have "data map templates" now, so "entity" is too narrow.


>>> 2. Is v1_2 confusing since it doesn't match the Cayenne versioning  
>>> and there isn't any sense of how 1.2 relates to 3.0M5.
>>
>> Since we likely won't be upgrading templates for each and every  
>> release, the a mismatch between the templates version and Cayenne  
>> version is sort of natural (not that I like it)... The only place  
>> where it is exposed to the user is the "version" attribute of cgen,  
>> where it is marked as deprecated:
>>
>> http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/cgen.html
>
> Yes... but.... inside the XML map is already a version number, in a  
> current map it is "3.0".

Believe it or not, this one doesn't necessarily correspond to Cayenne  
version either. It is only changed if a release introduces new mapping  
elements or changes the old ones. So there is a chance that Cayenne  
3.1 will use 3.0 mapping.


> So we aren't being very consistent. Plus the XML schema will itself  
> be versioned.

Correct. We won't be using mapping version once we migrate to a  
schema. But there is still a chance that schema version won't be equal  
Cayenne version.

> We are exposing it to the user simply by putting it in a folder  
> called 1.2.

99% of users don't know it... It is in the src folder for reference  
only. The important thing is that it is also in cayenne-server.jar,  
thus enabling cgen and CM to work without any extra paths.


>>> 3. Can we get rid of the deprecated templates outside the 1.2  
>>> folder which really shouldn't be offered for use. If people are  
>>> already using old templates, then let's support them, but let's  
>>> not encourage their use.
>>
>> If we support the deprecated template, we have to include it in the  
>> distro somewhere.
>
> Not necessarily. We can support something without encouraging its  
> use for new projects. If people are already using the old template,  
> then they don't need to download the files. If they aren't using the  
> template, then we'd rather they didn't know about it.

This would break the encapsulation of the templates (see above -  
default templates are assumed to be hidden from the user inside  
cayenne-server.jar).

Andrus

Re: Release packaging

[Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>]

On 04/12/2008, at 7:36 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:20 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
>> 1. I've never known what "dotemplates" means. Could we rename that  
>> to something more obvious like "entity templates"
>
> "Data Object Templates" :-) Anyways, the name is misleading. I don't  
> mind if we rename it to something else. "cgen-templates", or  
> something like that.


Great. I still like "entity templates" but anything is better than  
what I thought for years was "dot templates".


>> 2. Is v1_2 confusing since it doesn't match the Cayenne versioning  
>> and there isn't any sense of how 1.2 relates to 3.0M5.
>
> Since we likely won't be upgrading templates for each and every  
> release, the a mismatch between the templates version and Cayenne  
> version is sort of natural (not that I like it)... The only place  
> where it is exposed to the user is the "version" attribute of cgen,  
> where it is marked as deprecated:
>
> http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/cgen.html

Yes... but.... inside the XML map is already a version number, in a  
current map it is "3.0". So we aren't being very consistent. Plus the  
XML schema will itself be versioned.

We are exposing it to the user simply by putting it in a folder called  
1.2. I know xml version != template version, but there is considerable  
overlap.



>> 3. Can we get rid of the deprecated templates outside the 1.2  
>> folder which really shouldn't be offered for use. If people are  
>> already using old templates, then let's support them, but let's not  
>> encourage their use.
>
> If we support the deprecated template, we have to include it in the  
> distro somewhere.

Not necessarily. We can support something without encouraging its use  
for new projects. If people are already using the old template, then  
they don't need to download the files. If they aren't using the  
template, then we'd rather they didn't know about it.


>> 4. Should we create a schema for the Cayenne XML format? It should  
>> be quite simple I think and Cayenne modeler could even perform  
>> integrity checking to ensure generated models match the schema.
>
> +1. Formalizing the format is good idea. Somebody has to do it though.

Sure, I've just done a first cut of one which validates my XML schema.  
I'll put it somewhere and ask others to see if it validates everything  
that is out there.


>> 5. There should be separation of the third-party libraries into  
>> separate folders. Some are needed by Cayenne core, some only by the  
>> modeler or cgen (eg velocity) and one by JPA.
>
> I think it is not worth the maintenance trouble. The intention of  
> each library is well documented in the user guide, and we can run  
> into categorization overlap issues and such.

Fair enough. Maybe just a README in that directory would be useful.


Ari



-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001   fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A