You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@apache.org> on 2006/08/01 11:12:23 UTC
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
+0
I don't think it's a good idea to run Cocoon 2.2 using
"mvn jetty6:run". Basically if you use Maven 2 you have no other
choice than running a beta version of Jetty.
I made some tests (outside the scope of Cocoon), and
encountered problems with Jetty 6 Beta, which appears to be
shaky. If you feel confident, then at least be sure to use
version >= 6.0.0beta17.
But the point is: it's not up to the build system to decide what
servlet container needs to be used at runtime. Do you remember
Sylvain [1]talking about Ant+Ivy one and a half year ago? He was
right: Ivy *just* downloads artifacts in a local repository, and
that solves 99% of Maven 2 problems. Ivy does little, but it does
it well. In our current project we [2]switched from Maven 2 to
Ant+Ivy recently, and life is much better now. We trust the build
system again, and we are able to run any servlet container like
before.
The good news is that Ivy is compatible with Maven 2 directory
layout, and is able to read POMs. In short, it does not
require reorganizing the source tree all over again: it is very
unintrusive.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=110569717619800&w=2
[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=115338484216107&w=2
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>>
>> exactly this problem should be solved by releasing the named M1
>> artifacts. A "normal" user doesn't need to build Cocoon anymore.
> Does the user documentation now reflect that?
no, AFAIK not yet. As Carsten said and I repeated today, we need to provide
documentation about Cocoon 2.2.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> exactly this problem should be solved by releasing the named M1
> artifacts. A "normal" user doesn't need to build Cocoon anymore.
Does the user documentation now reflect that?
Ralph
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
> * Leszek Gawron:
>
>> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>>
>>> your observations regarding Jetty 6 are interesting but I
>>> don't understand how this relates to Cocoon and that it uses
>>> Maven 2 as build system?
>> Exactly .. Jetty is just used to start a webapp for development
>> purposes. You can easily take packaged cocoon webapp and use it
>> just like 2.1.x.
>
> Good point, but by experience I know that most users will follow
> exactly what is in README.txt. This is for running Cocoon.
>
> And for the build, do you think the user will continue trying
> Cocoon 2.2 after reading: « A full build can take from 5 minutes
> to maybe 4 hours... »? We just can't write that. We need a
> reliable build system as long as we require our users to build
> Cocoon themselves.
exactly this problem should be solved by releasing the named M1 artifacts. A
"normal" user doesn't need to build Cocoon anymore.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Der fr�he Vogel f�ngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Jorg Heymans <jh...@domek.be>.
On 8/1/06 2:42 PM, in article 20060801124209.GK70025@vision.anyware,
"Jean-Baptiste Quenot" <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> your observations regarding Jetty 6 are interesting but I
>>> don't understand how this relates to Cocoon and that it uses
>>> Maven 2 as build system?
>>
>> Exactly .. Jetty is just used to start a webapp for development
>> purposes. You can easily take packaged cocoon webapp and use it
>> just like 2.1.x.
>
> Good point, but by experience I know that most users will follow
> exactly what is in README.txt. This is for running Cocoon.
2.2.x 's usage of jetty is very similar to 2.1.x , don't think our users
will be fooled into thinking they can only use cocoon by launching jetty
through maven.
> And for the build, do you think the user will continue trying
> Cocoon 2.2 after reading: « A full build can take from 5 minutes
> to maybe 4 hours... »? We just can't write that. We need a
It *should* be removed yes.
Jorg
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@apache.org>.
* Leszek Gawron:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> > your observations regarding Jetty 6 are interesting but I
> > don't understand how this relates to Cocoon and that it uses
> > Maven 2 as build system?
>
> Exactly .. Jetty is just used to start a webapp for development
> purposes. You can easily take packaged cocoon webapp and use it
> just like 2.1.x.
Good point, but by experience I know that most users will follow
exactly what is in README.txt. This is for running Cocoon.
And for the build, do you think the user will continue trying
Cocoon 2.2 after reading: « A full build can take from 5 minutes
to maybe 4 hours... »? We just can't write that. We need a
reliable build system as long as we require our users to build
Cocoon themselves.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
>> +0
>>
>> I don't think it's a good idea to run Cocoon 2.2 using
>> "mvn jetty6:run". Basically if you use Maven 2 you have no other
>> choice than running a beta version of Jetty.
>>
>> I made some tests (outside the scope of Cocoon), and
>> encountered problems with Jetty 6 Beta, which appears to be
>> shaky. If you feel confident, then at least be sure to use
>> version >= 6.0.0beta17.
>>
>> But the point is: it's not up to the build system to decide what
>> servlet container needs to be used at runtime. Do you remember
>> Sylvain [1]talking about Ant+Ivy one and a half year ago? He was
>> right: Ivy *just* downloads artifacts in a local repository, and
>> that solves 99% of Maven 2 problems. Ivy does little, but it does
>> it well. In our current project we [2]switched from Maven 2 to
>> Ant+Ivy recently, and life is much better now. We trust the build
>> system again, and we are able to run any servlet container like
>> before.
>>
>> The good news is that Ivy is compatible with Maven 2 directory
>> layout, and is able to read POMs. In short, it does not
>> require reorganizing the source tree all over again: it is very
>> unintrusive.
>
> your observations regarding Jetty 6 are interesting but I don't
> understand how this relates to Cocoon and that it uses Maven 2 as build
> system?
Exactly .. Jetty is just used to start a webapp for development
purposes. You can easily take packaged cocoon webapp and use it just
like 2.1.x.
--
Leszek Gawron lgawron@mobilebox.pl
IT Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
> +0
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to run Cocoon 2.2 using
> "mvn jetty6:run". Basically if you use Maven 2 you have no other
> choice than running a beta version of Jetty.
>
> I made some tests (outside the scope of Cocoon), and
> encountered problems with Jetty 6 Beta, which appears to be
> shaky. If you feel confident, then at least be sure to use
> version >= 6.0.0beta17.
>
> But the point is: it's not up to the build system to decide what
> servlet container needs to be used at runtime. Do you remember
> Sylvain [1]talking about Ant+Ivy one and a half year ago? He was
> right: Ivy *just* downloads artifacts in a local repository, and
> that solves 99% of Maven 2 problems. Ivy does little, but it does
> it well. In our current project we [2]switched from Maven 2 to
> Ant+Ivy recently, and life is much better now. We trust the build
> system again, and we are able to run any servlet container like
> before.
>
> The good news is that Ivy is compatible with Maven 2 directory
> layout, and is able to read POMs. In short, it does not
> require reorganizing the source tree all over again: it is very
> unintrusive.
your observations regarding Jetty 6 are interesting but I don't understand how
this relates to Cocoon and that it uses Maven 2 as build system?
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Der fr�he Vogel f�ngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Jean-Baptiste Quenot escribió:
> * Antonio Gallardo:
>
>
>> Jean-Baptiste Quenot escribió:
>>
>
>
>>> I made some tests (outside the scope of Cocoon), and
>>> encountered problems with Jetty 6 Beta, which appears to be
>>> shaky. If you feel confident, then at least be sure to use
>>> version >= 6.0.0beta17.
>>>
>> Agreed. We had the same problems locally. Few weeks ago, tired
>> of the unstable jetty6 plugin situation, Carlos did a small
>> research and found we don't need to use jetty6 anymore. We can
>> use the stable jetty plugin now:
>>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Important-jetty-plugin-changes-t1900742.html
>>
>
> I don't see any information regarding the Jetty servlet container
> version itself. Neither at the above link nor at the one below:
>
> http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty6/maven-plugin/howto.html
>
> What makes you think you can downgrade Jetty? Dropping the "6" on
> the plugin name doesn't mean anything.
>
> The POM still depends on Jetty 6:
> http://www.mortbay.org/maven2/snapshot/org/mortbay/jetty/maven-jetty-plugin/6.0-SNAPSHOT/maven-jetty-plugin-6.0-20060723.171850-5.pom
>
> Cheers,
>
Yep. I took a closer look and you are right, but somehow it is stable
since then.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@apache.org>.
* Antonio Gallardo:
> Jean-Baptiste Quenot escribió:
> > I made some tests (outside the scope of Cocoon), and
> > encountered problems with Jetty 6 Beta, which appears to be
> > shaky. If you feel confident, then at least be sure to use
> > version >= 6.0.0beta17.
>
> Agreed. We had the same problems locally. Few weeks ago, tired
> of the unstable jetty6 plugin situation, Carlos did a small
> research and found we don't need to use jetty6 anymore. We can
> use the stable jetty plugin now:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Important-jetty-plugin-changes-t1900742.html
I don't see any information regarding the Jetty servlet container
version itself. Neither at the above link nor at the one below:
http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty6/maven-plugin/howto.html
What makes you think you can downgrade Jetty? Dropping the "6" on
the plugin name doesn't mean anything.
The POM still depends on Jetty 6:
http://www.mortbay.org/maven2/snapshot/org/mortbay/jetty/maven-jetty-plugin/6.0-SNAPSHOT/maven-jetty-plugin-6.0-20060723.171850-5.pom
Cheers,
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
Re: [Vote] Release 2.2M1
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Jean-Baptiste Quenot escribió:
> +0
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to run Cocoon 2.2 using
> "mvn jetty6:run". Basically if you use Maven 2 you have no other
> choice than running a beta version of Jetty.
>
> I made some tests (outside the scope of Cocoon), and
> encountered problems with Jetty 6 Beta, which appears to be
> shaky. If you feel confident, then at least be sure to use
> version >= 6.0.0beta17.
>
Agreed. We had the same problems locally. Few weeks ago, tired of the
unstable jetty6 plugin situation, Carlos did a small research and found
we don't need to use jetty6 anymore. We can use the stable jetty plugin now:
http://www.nabble.com/Important-jetty-plugin-changes-t1900742.html
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.