You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to scm@geronimo.apache.org by pr...@apache.org on 2006/12/11 04:22:48 UTC
svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Author: prasad
Date: Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
New Revision: 485477
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=485477
Log:
* changing assemblyId to jetty6 to make it consistent with tomcat6
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml?view=diff&rev=485477&r1=485476&r2=485477
==============================================================================
--- geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml (original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
@@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@
<configuration>
<assemblies>
<assembly>
- <id>jetty</id>
+ <id>jetty6</id>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jetty6-jee5</artifactId>
<version>${version}</version>
@@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@
</assembly>
<assembly>
- <id>jetty-minimal</id>
+ <id>jetty6-minimal</id>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jetty-minimal</artifactId>
<version>${version}</version>
@@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@
</assembly>
</assemblies>
- <defaultAssemblyId>jetty</defaultAssemblyId>
+ <defaultAssemblyId>jetty6</defaultAssemblyId>
<optionSets>
<optionSet>
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> I'm talking about the g-m-p assembly id, which is a terse alias to an
> assembly configuration. That has *nothing* to do with artifactId's
> as that thread was talking about. Assembly id's are not artifactId's
> and the fact that people having been changing the assembly ids based
> on the discussion you note above is a mistake.
>
> I'm not trying to point out any one in particular as making this
> mistake, just that it was done and that it should be reverted for the
> sake of the projects ongoing build configuration simplicity.
OK I'm coming to the realization that I for one have a lot more to
learn about the terminology and the relationships between certain
concepts in maven. So please continue to watch scm for any missteps
and (if you have any patience left :-) advise how to straighten them
out.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Dec 11, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> For the tc6 integration I used "jee5" in the assembly ids because the
> jetty assemblies in trunk already used it. I certainly don't mind if
> anyone wants to change them.
Ya, I don't think they should have ever been changed to jee5... but
with all the jee5 madness these days its easy enough to understand
how it happened.
Anyways, its minor... just means that we have to keep svn mv'ing
things around as we follow suns ever changing marketing propaganda.
>> Same thing with jetty/tomcat integration... I don't think we want to
>> (or plan to) support more than one version of these per G server
>> release, so the version here in the assembly id just complicates
>> usage. Meaning when jetty7 is out, then not only do you have to
>> configure the assembly config with the new artifactId, you also have
>> to go configure everyone who is using that assembly to use the new
>> id, that rather negates some of the purpose of that id... its an
>> alias... saying give me the G server that has jetty.
>
> I agree with you but I thought this was more or less hashed out last
> week in this thread:
> http://tinyurl.com/ynzhzb
> The consensus appeared to me that the tomcat and jetty artifactIds
> should include the version numbers so I made the change, although it
> was with some trepidation because personally I prefer to keep version
> numbers out of the artifactIds. At this point I think we are very
> close to tagging 2.0-M1 but maybe there is still time to change it if
> you feel strongly.
I'm talking about the g-m-p assembly id, which is a terse alias to an
assembly configuration. That has *nothing* to do with artifactId's
as that thread was talking about. Assembly id's are not artifactId's
and the fact that people having been changing the assembly ids based
on the discussion you note above is a mistake.
I'm not trying to point out any one in particular as making this
mistake, just that it was done and that it should be reverted for the
sake of the projects ongoing build configuration simplicity.
--jason
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> But why do we want to use "jetty5" and then "jetty6" all in the same
> branch?
>
> I don't think the version should be here.
>
> Actually I don't think that we need a version for the jee5 stuff
> either. It should be jee, or probably javaee, adding the version
> just means that every release we will have to change the name of the
> module and reconfigure everything. There was j2ee before, which was
> effectively the same as jee, it was not j2ee14, which would be the
> same as the jee5 that we have now. I don't think there is a plan to
> support more than one version of teh java enterprise edition per G
> server release, therefor the addition of spec version to our modules
> is unneeded and adds extra complexity which we should lean away from.
For the tc6 integration I used "jee5" in the assembly ids because the
jetty assemblies in trunk already used it. I certainly don't mind if
anyone wants to change them.
> Same thing with jetty/tomcat integration... I don't think we want to
> (or plan to) support more than one version of these per G server
> release, so the version here in the assembly id just complicates
> usage. Meaning when jetty7 is out, then not only do you have to
> configure the assembly config with the new artifactId, you also have
> to go configure everyone who is using that assembly to use the new
> id, that rather negates some of the purpose of that id... its an
> alias... saying give me the G server that has jetty.
I agree with you but I thought this was more or less hashed out last
week in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/ynzhzb
The consensus appeared to me that the tomcat and jetty artifactIds
should include the version numbers so I made the change, although it
was with some trepidation because personally I prefer to keep version
numbers out of the artifactIds. At this point I think we are very
close to tagging 2.0-M1 but maybe there is still time to change it if
you feel strongly.
> Blah... I'm just trying to keep build configuration complexity in
> check... but I'm getting a bit tired of trying :-\
I think we all sincerely appreciate what you're trying to do and
realize that getting these seemingly trivial things right will matter
a great deal in the long run. So don't give up on us :-)
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Maybe I could have saved you the trouble of writing the below email
and the subsequent discussion that ensued if I had only updated this
thread with the statement that I have already reverted back all the
assemblyIds to tomcat and jetty.
Sorry !
Anyway, I think we should go further and also revert the assembly
names too, IF possible. I am not sure how big of an effort it is. But
if M1 goes out with jetty6.zip, that'll make it one more reason we'll
be less inclined tot change it back to jetty.zip and tomcat.zip later.
Cheers
Prasad
On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> But why do we want to use "jetty5" and then "jetty6" all in the same
> branch?
>
> I don't think the version should be here.
>
> Actually I don't think that we need a version for the jee5 stuff
> either. It should be jee, or probably javaee, adding the version
> just means that every release we will have to change the name of the
> module and reconfigure everything. There was j2ee before, which was
> effectively the same as jee, it was not j2ee14, which would be the
> same as the jee5 that we have now. I don't think there is a plan to
> support more than one version of teh java enterprise edition per G
> server release, therefor the addition of spec version to our modules
> is unneeded and adds extra complexity which we should lean away from.
>
> Same thing with jetty/tomcat integration... I don't think we want to
> (or plan to) support more than one version of these per G server
> release, so the version here in the assembly id just complicates
> usage. Meaning when jetty7 is out, then not only do you have to
> configure the assembly config with the new artifactId, you also have
> to go configure everyone who is using that assembly to use the new
> id, that rather negates some of the purpose of that id... its an
> alias... saying give me the G server that has jetty.
>
> Blah... I'm just trying to keep build configuration complexity in
> check... but I'm getting a bit tired of trying :-\
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>
> > I agree with you. But then I thoght I'd use the -DassemblyId param in
> > one other place in the testsuite; the console-testsuite. The
> > webconsole-tomcat6 or webconsole-jetty6 car needs to be started and
> > stopped in the console-testsuite. Instead of using yet another config
> > param, I thought we could reuse the -DassemblyId.
> >
> > However, this whole thing is supposed to be temporary. This hack of
> > getting the container name, the container name itself having the
> > version number in it, everything. Which is why I didn't modify
> > "tomcat6" back to "tomcat"
> >
> > Cheers
> > Prasad
> >
> > 1) There must be a better way to get the container type, either from
> > the running server or from geronimoHome or some such place, instead of
> > using too many
> >
> > On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> >> Why are we giving the assembly id's the version suffix here? I don't
> >> think we want to do this. I think the ids, which are simply to
> >> select which assembly to use should be tomcat or jetty. IMO, this is
> >> just that much more to type... for no real gain.
> >>
> >> These are assembly ids, not artifact ids... they are supposed to be
> >> short and simple. IMO this change only complicates them slightly by
> >> forcing people to remember which jetty version they are using. And I
> >> hope that we are not going to start supporting a bunch of different
> >> jetty or tomcat versions per codeline... that would be a huge,
> >> massive, ugly mess.
> >>
> >> I recommend reverting this change, and changing the id's of the
> >> tomcat6* bits to tomcat*.
> >>
> >> --jason
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:22 PM, prasad@apache.org wrote:
> >>
> >> > Author: prasad
> >> > Date: Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> >> > New Revision: 485477
> >> >
> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=485477
> >> > Log:
> >> > * changing assemblyId to jetty6 to make it consistent with tomcat6
> >> >
> >> > Modified:
> >> > geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
> >> >
> >> > Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml?
> >> > view=diff&rev=485477&r1=485476&r2=485477
> >> >
> >> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> > ========
> >> > --- geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml (original)
> >> > +++ geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> >> > @@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@
> >> > <configuration>
> >> > <assemblies>
> >> > <assembly>
> >> > - <id>jetty</id>
> >> > + <id>jetty6</id>
> >> >
> >> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>geronimo-jetty6-jee5</
> >> > artifactId>
> >> > <version>${version}</version>
> >> > @@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@
> >> > </assembly>
> >> >
> >> > <assembly>
> >> > - <id>jetty-minimal</id>
> >> > + <id>jetty6-minimal</id>
> >> >
> >> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>geronimo-jetty-
> >> > minimal</artifactId>
> >> > <version>${version}</version>
> >> > @@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@
> >> > </assembly>
> >> > </assemblies>
> >> >
> >> > - <defaultAssemblyId>jetty</
> >> defaultAssemblyId>
> >> > + <defaultAssemblyId>jetty6</
> >> defaultAssemblyId>
> >> >
> >> > <optionSets>
> >> > <optionSet>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
But why do we want to use "jetty5" and then "jetty6" all in the same
branch?
I don't think the version should be here.
Actually I don't think that we need a version for the jee5 stuff
either. It should be jee, or probably javaee, adding the version
just means that every release we will have to change the name of the
module and reconfigure everything. There was j2ee before, which was
effectively the same as jee, it was not j2ee14, which would be the
same as the jee5 that we have now. I don't think there is a plan to
support more than one version of teh java enterprise edition per G
server release, therefor the addition of spec version to our modules
is unneeded and adds extra complexity which we should lean away from.
Same thing with jetty/tomcat integration... I don't think we want to
(or plan to) support more than one version of these per G server
release, so the version here in the assembly id just complicates
usage. Meaning when jetty7 is out, then not only do you have to
configure the assembly config with the new artifactId, you also have
to go configure everyone who is using that assembly to use the new
id, that rather negates some of the purpose of that id... its an
alias... saying give me the G server that has jetty.
Blah... I'm just trying to keep build configuration complexity in
check... but I'm getting a bit tired of trying :-\
--jason
On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> I agree with you. But then I thoght I'd use the -DassemblyId param in
> one other place in the testsuite; the console-testsuite. The
> webconsole-tomcat6 or webconsole-jetty6 car needs to be started and
> stopped in the console-testsuite. Instead of using yet another config
> param, I thought we could reuse the -DassemblyId.
>
> However, this whole thing is supposed to be temporary. This hack of
> getting the container name, the container name itself having the
> version number in it, everything. Which is why I didn't modify
> "tomcat6" back to "tomcat"
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> 1) There must be a better way to get the container type, either from
> the running server or from geronimoHome or some such place, instead of
> using too many
>
> On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> Why are we giving the assembly id's the version suffix here? I don't
>> think we want to do this. I think the ids, which are simply to
>> select which assembly to use should be tomcat or jetty. IMO, this is
>> just that much more to type... for no real gain.
>>
>> These are assembly ids, not artifact ids... they are supposed to be
>> short and simple. IMO this change only complicates them slightly by
>> forcing people to remember which jetty version they are using. And I
>> hope that we are not going to start supporting a bunch of different
>> jetty or tomcat versions per codeline... that would be a huge,
>> massive, ugly mess.
>>
>> I recommend reverting this change, and changing the id's of the
>> tomcat6* bits to tomcat*.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:22 PM, prasad@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> > Author: prasad
>> > Date: Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
>> > New Revision: 485477
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=485477
>> > Log:
>> > * changing assemblyId to jetty6 to make it consistent with tomcat6
>> >
>> > Modified:
>> > geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
>> >
>> > Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml?
>> > view=diff&rev=485477&r1=485476&r2=485477
>> >
>> =====================================================================
>> =
>> > ========
>> > --- geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml (original)
>> > +++ geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
>> > @@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@
>> > <configuration>
>> > <assemblies>
>> > <assembly>
>> > - <id>jetty</id>
>> > + <id>jetty6</id>
>> >
>> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>> > <artifactId>geronimo-jetty6-jee5</
>> > artifactId>
>> > <version>${version}</version>
>> > @@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@
>> > </assembly>
>> >
>> > <assembly>
>> > - <id>jetty-minimal</id>
>> > + <id>jetty6-minimal</id>
>> >
>> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>> > <artifactId>geronimo-jetty-
>> > minimal</artifactId>
>> > <version>${version}</version>
>> > @@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@
>> > </assembly>
>> > </assemblies>
>> >
>> > - <defaultAssemblyId>jetty</
>> defaultAssemblyId>
>> > + <defaultAssemblyId>jetty6</
>> defaultAssemblyId>
>> >
>> > <optionSets>
>> > <optionSet>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
I agree with you. But then I thoght I'd use the -DassemblyId param in
one other place in the testsuite; the console-testsuite. The
webconsole-tomcat6 or webconsole-jetty6 car needs to be started and
stopped in the console-testsuite. Instead of using yet another config
param, I thought we could reuse the -DassemblyId.
However, this whole thing is supposed to be temporary. This hack of
getting the container name, the container name itself having the
version number in it, everything. Which is why I didn't modify
"tomcat6" back to "tomcat"
Cheers
Prasad
1) There must be a better way to get the container type, either from
the running server or from geronimoHome or some such place, instead of
using too many
On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> Why are we giving the assembly id's the version suffix here? I don't
> think we want to do this. I think the ids, which are simply to
> select which assembly to use should be tomcat or jetty. IMO, this is
> just that much more to type... for no real gain.
>
> These are assembly ids, not artifact ids... they are supposed to be
> short and simple. IMO this change only complicates them slightly by
> forcing people to remember which jetty version they are using. And I
> hope that we are not going to start supporting a bunch of different
> jetty or tomcat versions per codeline... that would be a huge,
> massive, ugly mess.
>
> I recommend reverting this change, and changing the id's of the
> tomcat6* bits to tomcat*.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:22 PM, prasad@apache.org wrote:
>
> > Author: prasad
> > Date: Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> > New Revision: 485477
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=485477
> > Log:
> > * changing assemblyId to jetty6 to make it consistent with tomcat6
> >
> > Modified:
> > geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
> >
> > Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml?
> > view=diff&rev=485477&r1=485476&r2=485477
> > ======================================================================
> > ========
> > --- geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml (original)
> > +++ geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> > @@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@
> > <configuration>
> > <assemblies>
> > <assembly>
> > - <id>jetty</id>
> > + <id>jetty6</id>
> >
> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> > <artifactId>geronimo-jetty6-jee5</
> > artifactId>
> > <version>${version}</version>
> > @@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@
> > </assembly>
> >
> > <assembly>
> > - <id>jetty-minimal</id>
> > + <id>jetty6-minimal</id>
> >
> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> > <artifactId>geronimo-jetty-
> > minimal</artifactId>
> > <version>${version}</version>
> > @@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@
> > </assembly>
> > </assemblies>
> >
> > - <defaultAssemblyId>jetty</defaultAssemblyId>
> > + <defaultAssemblyId>jetty6</defaultAssemblyId>
> >
> > <optionSets>
> > <optionSet>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Why are we giving the assembly id's the version suffix here? I don't
think we want to do this. I think the ids, which are simply to
select which assembly to use should be tomcat or jetty. IMO, this is
just that much more to type... for no real gain.
These are assembly ids, not artifact ids... they are supposed to be
short and simple. IMO this change only complicates them slightly by
forcing people to remember which jetty version they are using. And I
hope that we are not going to start supporting a bunch of different
jetty or tomcat versions per codeline... that would be a huge,
massive, ugly mess.
I recommend reverting this change, and changing the id's of the
tomcat6* bits to tomcat*.
--jason
On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:22 PM, prasad@apache.org wrote:
> Author: prasad
> Date: Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> New Revision: 485477
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=485477
> Log:
> * changing assemblyId to jetty6 to make it consistent with tomcat6
>
> Modified:
> geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
>
> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml?
> view=diff&rev=485477&r1=485476&r2=485477
> ======================================================================
> ========
> --- geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml (original)
> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> @@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@
> <configuration>
> <assemblies>
> <assembly>
> - <id>jetty</id>
> + <id>jetty6</id>
>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-jetty6-jee5</
> artifactId>
> <version>${version}</version>
> @@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@
> </assembly>
>
> <assembly>
> - <id>jetty-minimal</id>
> + <id>jetty6-minimal</id>
>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-jetty-
> minimal</artifactId>
> <version>${version}</version>
> @@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@
> </assembly>
> </assemblies>
>
> - <defaultAssemblyId>jetty</defaultAssemblyId>
> + <defaultAssemblyId>jetty6</defaultAssemblyId>
>
> <optionSets>
> <optionSet>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Why are we giving the assembly id's the version suffix here? I don't
think we want to do this. I think the ids, which are simply to
select which assembly to use should be tomcat or jetty. IMO, this is
just that much more to type... for no real gain.
These are assembly ids, not artifact ids... they are supposed to be
short and simple. IMO this change only complicates them slightly by
forcing people to remember which jetty version they are using. And I
hope that we are not going to start supporting a bunch of different
jetty or tomcat versions per codeline... that would be a huge,
massive, ugly mess.
I recommend reverting this change, and changing the id's of the
tomcat6* bits to tomcat*.
--jason
On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:22 PM, prasad@apache.org wrote:
> Author: prasad
> Date: Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> New Revision: 485477
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=485477
> Log:
> * changing assemblyId to jetty6 to make it consistent with tomcat6
>
> Modified:
> geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
>
> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml?
> view=diff&rev=485477&r1=485476&r2=485477
> ======================================================================
> ========
> --- geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml (original)
> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml Sun Dec 10 19:22:47 2006
> @@ -1256,7 +1256,7 @@
> <configuration>
> <assemblies>
> <assembly>
> - <id>jetty</id>
> + <id>jetty6</id>
>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-jetty6-jee5</
> artifactId>
> <version>${version}</version>
> @@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@
> </assembly>
>
> <assembly>
> - <id>jetty-minimal</id>
> + <id>jetty6-minimal</id>
>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-jetty-
> minimal</artifactId>
> <version>${version}</version>
> @@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@
> </assembly>
> </assemblies>
>
> - <defaultAssemblyId>jetty</defaultAssemblyId>
> + <defaultAssemblyId>jetty6</defaultAssemblyId>
>
> <optionSets>
> <optionSet>
>
>