You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> on 2006/09/27 14:46:21 UTC
Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Hi,
Just wondering whether we should move to org.apache.openejb? Should we
do something else than just repackaging java files? Anything legal or
similar?
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>
>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should we do this soon and publish new jars on people.a.o or
>>>>> wait bit?
>>>>
>>>> Do this now. There won't be any better time than today/tonight!
>>>>
>>>> Jacek
>>>>
>>> Should this push up the version? That way, if someone is
>>> referencing version 2.1.1 they know that the packaging is
>>> org.openejb and if they use version 2.1.2 they know they are
>>> using org.apache.openejb.
>>>
>>> That would open a window for Geronimo to be changed over rather
>>> than requiring the two to be tightly synchronized in the change
>>> over.
>>
>> I at least am only thinking of changing openejb2 trunk which is
>> currently building 2.2-SNAPSHOT. We can't change any of the tags
>> for previosly released versions. We could try fixing up branches/
>> 2.1 but I think this requires more discussion and I'm not sure we
>> should plan on such a release.
> Changing the version numbers might still be a good thing to do.
> For the yoko support I've been working on, I changed my working
> build to generate 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT artifacts. This small change
> seriously saved my sanity when it came to dealing with the
> corresponding Geronimo changes.
We have to add the word 'incubating' to the version of any snapshots
or release jars we publish (i.e. 2.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT). That and
our groupId will now be org.apache.openejb.
So if there is a desire to bump the version for whatever reason,
that'd likely do the trick.
-David
> Rick
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>> Jay
>>
>>
>
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>
>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>> On 9/27/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should we do this soon and publish new jars on people.a.o or wait bit?
>>>
>>> Do this now. There won't be any better time than today/tonight!
>>>
>>> Jacek
>>>
>> Should this push up the version? That way, if someone is referencing
>> version 2.1.1 they know that the packaging is org.openejb and if they
>> use version 2.1.2 they know they are using org.apache.openejb.
>>
>> That would open a window for Geronimo to be changed over rather than
>> requiring the two to be tightly synchronized in the change over.
>
> I at least am only thinking of changing openejb2 trunk which is
> currently building 2.2-SNAPSHOT. We can't change any of the tags for
> previosly released versions. We could try fixing up branches/2.1 but
> I think this requires more discussion and I'm not sure we should plan
> on such a release.
Changing the version numbers might still be a good thing to do. For the
yoko support I've been working on, I changed my working build to
generate 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT artifacts. This small change seriously saved my
sanity when it came to dealing with the corresponding Geronimo changes.
Rick
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Jay
>
>
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> On 9/27/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Should we do this soon and publish new jars on people.a.o or wait
>>> bit?
>>
>> Do this now. There won't be any better time than today/tonight!
>>
>> Jacek
>>
> Should this push up the version? That way, if someone is
> referencing version 2.1.1 they know that the packaging is
> org.openejb and if they use version 2.1.2 they know they are using
> org.apache.openejb.
>
> That would open a window for Geronimo to be changed over rather
> than requiring the two to be tightly synchronized in the change over.
I at least am only thinking of changing openejb2 trunk which is
currently building 2.2-SNAPSHOT. We can't change any of the tags
for previosly released versions. We could try fixing up branches/2.1
but I think this requires more discussion and I'm not sure we should
plan on such a release.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Jay
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@joyfulnoisewebdesign.com>.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 9/27/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Should we do this soon and publish new jars on people.a.o or wait bit?
>
> Do this now. There won't be any better time than today/tonight!
>
> Jacek
>
Should this push up the version? That way, if someone is referencing
version 2.1.1 they know that the packaging is org.openejb and if they
use version 2.1.2 they know they are using org.apache.openejb.
That would open a window for Geronimo to be changed over rather than
requiring the two to be tightly synchronized in the change over.
Jay
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 9/27/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Should we do this soon and publish new jars on people.a.o or wait bit?
Do this now. There won't be any better time than today/tonight!
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:13 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 9:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I suspect the package change can be done with IDEA and it will
>> find the entries in configs and assemblies if you are using a
>> project with both openejb + g in it. I have a couple of those so
>> if you want I could do the refactoring.
>
> Sold! Going once, going twice, gone.... <bangs gavel>
>
> You do 2 and I'll do 3. How does that sound?
>
Done with 3. Did the repackage, updated the version to 3.0-
incubating-SNAPSHOT, and did the license headers.
No need to tackle the license headers too, but feel free if you get
ambitious.
-David
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 27, 2006, at 9:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 9:39 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just wondering whether we should move to org.apache.openejb?
>>> Should we
>>> do something else than just repackaging java files? Anything
>>> legal or
>>> similar?
>>
>> Right we have to do both those things (repackage and switch
>> license headers).
>>
>> We're going to have to be extra sensitive on the repackage as that
>> is really going knock Geronimo for a loop. Some sort of
>> coordination is in order.
>
> agreed.... but I think the only impact should be in configs and
> maybe assemblies. Dunno if the console refers to openejb at all.
>
> I suspect the package change can be done with IDEA and it will find
> the entries in configs and assemblies if you are using a project
> with both openejb + g in it. I have a couple of those so if you
> want I could do the refactoring.
Sold! Going once, going twice, gone.... <bangs gavel>
You do 2 and I'll do 3. How does that sound?
Should we do this soon and publish new jars on people.a.o or wait bit?
-David
> Otherwise, what I do is check out openejb into thirdparty/
> openejb2 inside geronimo and add this profile to the root g. pom:
>
> <profile>
> <id>all</id>
>
> <modules>
> <module>testsupport</module>
> <module>modules</module>
> <module>thirdparty/openejb2</module>
> <module>maven-plugins</module>
> <module>applications</module>
> <module>configs</module>
> <module>assemblies</module>
> </modules>
> </profile>
>
>
> then mvn -o idea:idea -Pall generates the idea project containing
> both g + openejb.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>> Jacek
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacek Laskowski
>>> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>>>
>>
>
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 27, 2006, at 9:39 AM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just wondering whether we should move to org.apache.openejb?
>> Should we
>> do something else than just repackaging java files? Anything legal or
>> similar?
>
> Right we have to do both those things (repackage and switch license
> headers).
>
> We're going to have to be extra sensitive on the repackage as that
> is really going knock Geronimo for a loop. Some sort of
> coordination is in order.
agreed.... but I think the only impact should be in configs and maybe
assemblies. Dunno if the console refers to openejb at all.
I suspect the package change can be done with IDEA and it will find
the entries in configs and assemblies if you are using a project with
both openejb + g in it. I have a couple of those so if you want I
could do the refactoring. Otherwise, what I do is check out openejb
into thirdparty/openejb2 inside geronimo and add this profile to the
root g. pom:
<profile>
<id>all</id>
<modules>
<module>testsupport</module>
<module>modules</module>
<module>thirdparty/openejb2</module>
<module>maven-plugins</module>
<module>applications</module>
<module>configs</module>
<module>assemblies</module>
</modules>
</profile>
then mvn -o idea:idea -Pall generates the idea project containing
both g + openejb.
thanks
david jencks
>
> -David
>
>> Jacek
>>
>> --
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>>
>
Re: Repackaging to org.apache.openejb?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 27, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering whether we should move to org.apache.openejb? Should we
> do something else than just repackaging java files? Anything legal or
> similar?
Right we have to do both those things (repackage and switch license
headers).
We're going to have to be extra sensitive on the repackage as that is
really going knock Geronimo for a loop. Some sort of coordination is
in order.
-David
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>