You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@empire-db.apache.org by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de> on 2009/06/16 17:03:25 UTC
revive the release process
Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order to be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all required legal documents are there.
However, there is one thing that annoys me:
The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some exceptions.
Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are confusing.
@Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the unit tests?
Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for voting?
Regards
Rainer
Re: ready for release?
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de> wrote:
> Hi Francis,
>
> In this case I suggest setting the level to FATAL and close this isssue.
Done
>
> Another question: In our readme.txt the build instructions are:
>>
>> === Eclipse ===
>>
>> - Install the m2eclipse plugin and import the projects directly
>> http://m2eclipse.codehaus.org/
>> In eclipse: Import... Maven projects
>>
>> - Run 'mvn clean install eclipse:eclipse -DdownloadSources=true'
>> In eclipse: Import... Existing projects into workspace
>
> Sounds a bit complicated to me.
> Is it OK if we change it to something like:
>>
>> === Eclipse ===
>>
>> Change to src directory of Apache Empire-db distribution
>> and run
>> $ mvn install eclipse:eclipse
>>
>
> First of all I don't think the description for the m2eclipse plugin is accurate and second do we really need to specify options like "-DdownloadSources=true"?
> I can't tell whether or not the instructions for NetBeans are sufficient.
Feel free to change it to what you think is better, I'll let you know
if I disagree ;-)
We could point to the sites of maven and m2e instead of explaining ourselves...
http://maven.apache.org/eclipse-plugin.html (mvn eclipse:eclipse not explained)
The netbeans info is correct, there's nothing much to do in that IDE
appart form installing the plugin (Even think it comes standard
installed now)
http://maven.apache.org/netbeans-module.html
>
> BTW: In the Apache CXF distribution the pom is in the root directory and all you need to do is call mvn from the command line. There is no need to specify a goal. Would that be possible or desirable for us too?
that is possible, I added <defaultGoal>install</defaultGoal> to the
<build> section, but this won't perform a clean/recompile on a second
build!
>
> Regards
> Rainer
>
> P.S. I will be on a business trip with limited access to E-Mail the next couple of days. So don't expect immediate answers.
>
> Rainer
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> Re: ready for release?
>>
>> Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
>> projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
>>
>> As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's not
>> that I'm against hiding the logging either
>>
>> Francis
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Francis,
>> >
>> > well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
>> > My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for
>> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at
>> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
>> > But it's a personal opinion.
>> > Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
>> >
>> > The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
>> > Is there anything else we can or must supply.
>> >
>> > Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains
>> how to build with Maven.
>> > We could adapt this for our release.
>> >
>> > @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Rainer
>> >
>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >> Re: logging of unit tests
>> >>
>> >> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
>> error
>> >> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
>> >>
>> >> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a
>> file
>> >> in the target folder instead of console?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Francis,
>> >> >
>> >> > thanks a lot.
>> >> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
>> >> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
>> logical.
>> >> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
>> properties
>> >> file.
>> >> >
>> >> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting
>> the
>> >> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
>> >> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
>> >> benefit in having the log output there.
>> >> > What do you think?
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> > Rainer
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >> >> Re: revive the release process
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default
>> value
>> >> is
>> >> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
>> >> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level
>> >> and
>> >> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j
>> to
>> >> >> hide the traces
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What do you think?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
>> >> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Hi Rainer,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
>> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently,
>> I
>> >> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in
>> order
>> >> to
>> >> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell
>> all
>> >> >> required legal documents are there.
>> >> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>> >> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including
>> some
>> >> >> exceptions.
>> >> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
>> >> >> confusing.
>> >> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running
>> the
>> >> >> unit tests?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>> >> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
>> >> voting?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Regards
>> >> >> >> Rainer
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > http://www.somatik.be
>> >> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> http://www.somatik.be
>> >> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://www.somatik.be
>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.somatik.be
>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
re: ready for release?
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Francis,
In this case I suggest setting the level to FATAL and close this isssue.
Another question: In our readme.txt the build instructions are:
>
> === Eclipse ===
>
> - Install the m2eclipse plugin and import the projects directly
> http://m2eclipse.codehaus.org/
> In eclipse: Import... Maven projects
>
> - Run 'mvn clean install eclipse:eclipse -DdownloadSources=true'
> In eclipse: Import... Existing projects into workspace
Sounds a bit complicated to me.
Is it OK if we change it to something like:
>
> === Eclipse ===
>
> Change to src directory of Apache Empire-db distribution
> and run
> $ mvn install eclipse:eclipse
>
First of all I don't think the description for the m2eclipse plugin is accurate and second do we really need to specify options like "-DdownloadSources=true"?
I can't tell whether or not the instructions for NetBeans are sufficient.
BTW: In the Apache CXF distribution the pom is in the root directory and all you need to do is call mvn from the command line. There is no need to specify a goal. Would that be possible or desirable for us too?
Regards
Rainer
P.S. I will be on a business trip with limited access to E-Mail the next couple of days. So don't expect immediate answers.
Rainer
Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> Re: ready for release?
>
> Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
> projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
>
> As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's not
> that I'm against hiding the logging either
>
> Francis
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> wrote:
> > Hi Francis,
> >
> > well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
> > My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for
> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at
> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
> > But it's a personal opinion.
> > Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
> >
> > The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
> > Is there anything else we can or must supply.
> >
> > Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains
> how to build with Maven.
> > We could adapt this for our release.
> >
> > @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
> >
> > Regards
> > Rainer
> >
> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >> Re: logging of unit tests
> >>
> >> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
> error
> >> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
> >>
> >> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a
> file
> >> in the target folder instead of console?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Francis,
> >> >
> >> > thanks a lot.
> >> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
> >> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
> logical.
> >> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
> properties
> >> file.
> >> >
> >> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting
> the
> >> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
> >> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
> >> benefit in having the log output there.
> >> > What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Rainer
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >> >> Re: revive the release process
> >> >>
> >> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default
> value
> >> is
> >> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
> >> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
> >> >>
> >> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level
> >> and
> >> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j
> to
> >> >> hide the traces
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
> >> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Rainer,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently,
> I
> >> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in
> order
> >> to
> >> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell
> all
> >> >> required legal documents are there.
> >> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> >> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including
> some
> >> >> exceptions.
> >> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
> >> >> confusing.
> >> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running
> the
> >> >> unit tests?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> >> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
> >> voting?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Regards
> >> >> >> Rainer
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > http://www.somatik.be
> >> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> http://www.somatik.be
> >> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.somatik.be
> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: ready for release?
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
> But before this goes on forever we should really set a deadline for completing the process.
> So I suggest Sunday in a week (28.6.) midnight as the deadline for all changes and improvements of the pending release, so that we can start voting on the release from Monday 29th.
> Should we encounter any severe problems we can still extend the deadline.
sounds like a good idea
>
> Rainer
>
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> Re: ready for release?
>>
>> I used the jetty plugin to test the web apps (mvn jetty:run), I have
>> never used WTP (and its m2e integration) before, maybe you should have
>> a look at some other web projects that use maven. I know wicket has a
>> Start.java that starts an embedded jetty.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > I found a litte problem:
>> > For some reason the WTP-Eclipse plugin was commented out on the two
>> struts2 web example projects (empire-db-example-struts2 + empire-db-
>> example-struts2-cxf).
>> > I have commented them in and run mvn eclipse:eclipse.
>> > For some reason the litte earth symbol that is usually on the top
>> left of the project icon for WTP Projects is not there, but I could
>> choose "debug on server".
>> > Then I found, that I got a "Class not found" error.
>> > So I checked the Java EE Module dependencies and found that the
>> dependencies were not selected.
>> > I selected them but still got the error because for some reason it
>> does not see to load the empire-db-struts2 classes.
>> >
>> > My questions:
>> > 1. Has anyone managed to run the two web samples projects?
>> > 2. What do we need to change that the run off the shelf?
>> > 3. Does anyone know whether there is a Maven plugin that's sets up
>> the project for the use with the tomcat sysdeo Eclipse plugin?
>> >
>> > @Francis: About the wiki:
>> > At the moment we have a rather static website.
>> > I don't know whether or how to set up a wiki.
>> > Sorry.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >> Re: ready for release?
>> >>
>> >> Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme
>> >> we also need some release task list and I need to look into
>> releasing
>> >> using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging
>> >> repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it.
>> >>
>> >> Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that
>> >> planned for after incubation?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De
>> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
>> >> > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
>> >> >
>> >> > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's
>> >> not
>> >> > that I'm against hiding the logging either
>> >> >
>> >> > Francis
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Francis,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about
>> it.
>> >> >> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests
>> for
>> >> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed
>> at
>> >> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
>> >> >> But it's a personal opinion.
>> >> >> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
>> >> >> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that
>> explains
>> >> how to build with Maven.
>> >> >> We could adapt this for our release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >> Rainer
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >> >>> Re: logging of unit tests
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
>> >> error
>> >> >>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a
>> >> file
>> >> >>> in the target folder instead of console?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer
>> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > Hi Francis,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > thanks a lot.
>> >> >>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
>> >> >>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
>> >> logical.
>> >> >>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
>> >> properties
>> >> >>> file.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider
>> setting
>> >> the
>> >> >>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
>> >> >>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not
>> much
>> >> >>> benefit in having the log output there.
>> >> >>> > What do you think?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Regards
>> >> >>> > Rainer
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >> >>> >> Re: revive the release process
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default
>> >> value
>> >> >>> is
>> >> >>> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
>> >> >>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error
>> >> level
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in
>> log4j
>> >> to
>> >> >>> >> hide the traces
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> What do you think?
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
>> >> >>> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> > Hi Rainer,
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
>> >> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list
>> >> recently, I
>> >> >>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5
>> in
>> >> order
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can
>> tell
>> >> all
>> >> >>> >> required legal documents are there.
>> >> >>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>> >> >>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output -
>> including
>> >> some
>> >> >>> >> exceptions.
>> >> >>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but
>> are
>> >> >>> >> confusing.
>> >> >>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when
>> running
>> >> the
>> >> >>> >> unit tests?
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>> >> >>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up
>> for
>> >> >>> voting?
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >>> >> >> Rainer
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > --
>> >> >>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
>> >> >>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole
>> house.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> --
>> >> >>> >> http://www.somatik.be
>> >> >>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> http://www.somatik.be
>> >> >>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://www.somatik.be
>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.somatik.be
>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
re: ready for release?
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
OK I did not know exactly what the jetty plugin was used for.
But when you use "mvn jetty:run" are you able to debug it in Eclipse?
I know most people use the WTP but personally I prefer the Sysdeo Eclipse Tomcat Launcher plugin (http://www.eclipsetotale.com/tomcatPlugin.html) to debug Web-Applications. The sysdeo plugin only supports Tomcat but that's fine for me. I found that there is a Maven plugin available on http://mojo.codehaus.org/sysdeo-tomcat-maven-plugin/
I will experiment with it a bit and possibly add it to the corresponding poms.
I will also try to figure out how to properly set it up for WTP.
I am also still hoping for Jörg to have a closer look at the release candidate.
But before this goes on forever we should really set a deadline for completing the process.
So I suggest Sunday in a week (28.6.) midnight as the deadline for all changes and improvements of the pending release, so that we can start voting on the release from Monday 29th.
Should we encounter any severe problems we can still extend the deadline.
Rainer
Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> Re: ready for release?
>
> I used the jetty plugin to test the web apps (mvn jetty:run), I have
> never used WTP (and its m2e integration) before, maybe you should have
> a look at some other web projects that use maven. I know wicket has a
> Start.java that starts an embedded jetty.
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I found a litte problem:
> > For some reason the WTP-Eclipse plugin was commented out on the two
> struts2 web example projects (empire-db-example-struts2 + empire-db-
> example-struts2-cxf).
> > I have commented them in and run mvn eclipse:eclipse.
> > For some reason the litte earth symbol that is usually on the top
> left of the project icon for WTP Projects is not there, but I could
> choose "debug on server".
> > Then I found, that I got a "Class not found" error.
> > So I checked the Java EE Module dependencies and found that the
> dependencies were not selected.
> > I selected them but still got the error because for some reason it
> does not see to load the empire-db-struts2 classes.
> >
> > My questions:
> > 1. Has anyone managed to run the two web samples projects?
> > 2. What do we need to change that the run off the shelf?
> > 3. Does anyone know whether there is a Maven plugin that's sets up
> the project for the use with the tomcat sysdeo Eclipse plugin?
> >
> > @Francis: About the wiki:
> > At the moment we have a rather static website.
> > I don't know whether or how to set up a wiki.
> > Sorry.
> >
> >
> >
> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >> Re: ready for release?
> >>
> >> Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme
> >> we also need some release task list and I need to look into
> releasing
> >> using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging
> >> repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it.
> >>
> >> Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that
> >> planned for after incubation?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De
> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
> >> > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's
> >> not
> >> > that I'm against hiding the logging either
> >> >
> >> > Francis
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Francis,
> >> >>
> >> >> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about
> it.
> >> >> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests
> for
> >> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed
> at
> >> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
> >> >> But it's a personal opinion.
> >> >> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
> >> >>
> >> >> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
> >> >> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
> >> >>
> >> >> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that
> explains
> >> how to build with Maven.
> >> >> We could adapt this for our release.
> >> >>
> >> >> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> Rainer
> >> >>
> >> >> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >> >>> Re: logging of unit tests
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
> >> error
> >> >>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a
> >> file
> >> >>> in the target folder instead of console?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer
> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > Hi Francis,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > thanks a lot.
> >> >>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
> >> >>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
> >> logical.
> >> >>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
> >> properties
> >> >>> file.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider
> setting
> >> the
> >> >>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
> >> >>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not
> much
> >> >>> benefit in having the log output there.
> >> >>> > What do you think?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Regards
> >> >>> > Rainer
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >> >>> >> Re: revive the release process
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default
> >> value
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
> >> >>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error
> >> level
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in
> log4j
> >> to
> >> >>> >> hide the traces
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> What do you think?
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
> >> >>> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > Hi Rainer,
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
> >> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list
> >> recently, I
> >> >>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5
> in
> >> order
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can
> tell
> >> all
> >> >>> >> required legal documents are there.
> >> >>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> >> >>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output -
> including
> >> some
> >> >>> >> exceptions.
> >> >>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but
> are
> >> >>> >> confusing.
> >> >>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when
> running
> >> the
> >> >>> >> unit tests?
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> >> >>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up
> for
> >> >>> voting?
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> Regards
> >> >>> >> >> Rainer
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > --
> >> >>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
> >> >>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole
> house.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> --
> >> >>> >> http://www.somatik.be
> >> >>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> http://www.somatik.be
> >> >>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > http://www.somatik.be
> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.somatik.be
> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: ready for release?
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
I used the jetty plugin to test the web apps (mvn jetty:run), I have
never used WTP (and its m2e integration) before, maybe you should have
a look at some other web projects that use maven. I know wicket has a
Start.java that starts an embedded jetty.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I found a litte problem:
> For some reason the WTP-Eclipse plugin was commented out on the two struts2 web example projects (empire-db-example-struts2 + empire-db-example-struts2-cxf).
> I have commented them in and run mvn eclipse:eclipse.
> For some reason the litte earth symbol that is usually on the top left of the project icon for WTP Projects is not there, but I could choose "debug on server".
> Then I found, that I got a "Class not found" error.
> So I checked the Java EE Module dependencies and found that the dependencies were not selected.
> I selected them but still got the error because for some reason it does not see to load the empire-db-struts2 classes.
>
> My questions:
> 1. Has anyone managed to run the two web samples projects?
> 2. What do we need to change that the run off the shelf?
> 3. Does anyone know whether there is a Maven plugin that's sets up the project for the use with the tomcat sysdeo Eclipse plugin?
>
> @Francis: About the wiki:
> At the moment we have a rather static website.
> I don't know whether or how to set up a wiki.
> Sorry.
>
>
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> Re: ready for release?
>>
>> Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme
>> we also need some release task list and I need to look into releasing
>> using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging
>> repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it.
>>
>> Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that
>> planned for after incubation?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De
>> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
>> > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
>> >
>> > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's
>> not
>> > that I'm against hiding the logging either
>> >
>> > Francis
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi Francis,
>> >>
>> >> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
>> >> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for
>> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at
>> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
>> >> But it's a personal opinion.
>> >> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
>> >>
>> >> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
>> >> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
>> >>
>> >> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains
>> how to build with Maven.
>> >> We could adapt this for our release.
>> >>
>> >> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Rainer
>> >>
>> >> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >>> Re: logging of unit tests
>> >>>
>> >>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
>> error
>> >>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
>> >>>
>> >>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a
>> file
>> >>> in the target folder instead of console?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi Francis,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > thanks a lot.
>> >>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
>> >>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
>> logical.
>> >>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
>> properties
>> >>> file.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting
>> the
>> >>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
>> >>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
>> >>> benefit in having the log output there.
>> >>> > What do you think?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Regards
>> >>> > Rainer
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >>> >> Re: revive the release process
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default
>> value
>> >>> is
>> >>> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
>> >>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error
>> level
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j
>> to
>> >>> >> hide the traces
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> What do you think?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
>> >>> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Hi Rainer,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
>> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list
>> recently, I
>> >>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in
>> order
>> >>> to
>> >>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell
>> all
>> >>> >> required legal documents are there.
>> >>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>> >>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including
>> some
>> >>> >> exceptions.
>> >>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
>> >>> >> confusing.
>> >>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running
>> the
>> >>> >> unit tests?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>> >>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
>> >>> voting?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Regards
>> >>> >> >> Rainer
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > --
>> >>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
>> >>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> http://www.somatik.be
>> >>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> http://www.somatik.be
>> >>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://www.somatik.be
>> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.somatik.be
>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
re: ready for release?
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi everyone,
I found a litte problem:
For some reason the WTP-Eclipse plugin was commented out on the two struts2 web example projects (empire-db-example-struts2 + empire-db-example-struts2-cxf).
I have commented them in and run mvn eclipse:eclipse.
For some reason the litte earth symbol that is usually on the top left of the project icon for WTP Projects is not there, but I could choose "debug on server".
Then I found, that I got a "Class not found" error.
So I checked the Java EE Module dependencies and found that the dependencies were not selected.
I selected them but still got the error because for some reason it does not see to load the empire-db-struts2 classes.
My questions:
1. Has anyone managed to run the two web samples projects?
2. What do we need to change that the run off the shelf?
3. Does anyone know whether there is a Maven plugin that's sets up the project for the use with the tomcat sysdeo Eclipse plugin?
@Francis: About the wiki:
At the moment we have a rather static website.
I don't know whether or how to set up a wiki.
Sorry.
Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> Re: ready for release?
>
> Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme
> we also need some release task list and I need to look into releasing
> using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging
> repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it.
>
> Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that
> planned for after incubation?
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De
> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
> > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
> >
> > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's
> not
> > that I'm against hiding the logging either
> >
> > Francis
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Francis,
> >>
> >> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
> >> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for
> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at
> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
> >> But it's a personal opinion.
> >> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
> >>
> >> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
> >> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
> >>
> >> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains
> how to build with Maven.
> >> We could adapt this for our release.
> >>
> >> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Rainer
> >>
> >> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >>> Re: logging of unit tests
> >>>
> >>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
> error
> >>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
> >>>
> >>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a
> file
> >>> in the target folder instead of console?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi Francis,
> >>> >
> >>> > thanks a lot.
> >>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
> >>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
> logical.
> >>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
> properties
> >>> file.
> >>> >
> >>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting
> the
> >>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
> >>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
> >>> benefit in having the log output there.
> >>> > What do you think?
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards
> >>> > Rainer
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >>> >> Re: revive the release process
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default
> value
> >>> is
> >>> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
> >>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error
> level
> >>> and
> >>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j
> to
> >>> >> hide the traces
> >>> >>
> >>> >> What do you think?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
> >>> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> > Hi Rainer,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list
> recently, I
> >>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in
> order
> >>> to
> >>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell
> all
> >>> >> required legal documents are there.
> >>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> >>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including
> some
> >>> >> exceptions.
> >>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
> >>> >> confusing.
> >>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running
> the
> >>> >> unit tests?
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> >>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
> >>> voting?
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Regards
> >>> >> >> Rainer
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > --
> >>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
> >>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> http://www.somatik.be
> >>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://www.somatik.be
> >>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.somatik.be
> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: ready for release?
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme
we also need some release task list and I need to look into releasing
using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging
repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it.
Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that
planned for after incubation?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De
Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
> projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
>
> As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's not
> that I'm against hiding the logging either
>
> Francis
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de> wrote:
>> Hi Francis,
>>
>> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
>> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
>> But it's a personal opinion.
>> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
>>
>> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
>> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
>>
>> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains how to build with Maven.
>> We could adapt this for our release.
>>
>> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
>>
>> Regards
>> Rainer
>>
>> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>>> Re: logging of unit tests
>>>
>>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to error
>>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
>>>
>>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file
>>> in the target folder instead of console?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Francis,
>>> >
>>> > thanks a lot.
>>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
>>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its logical.
>>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a properties
>>> file.
>>> >
>>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting the
>>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
>>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
>>> benefit in having the log output there.
>>> > What do you think?
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > Rainer
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>>> >> Re: revive the release process
>>> >>
>>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value
>>> is
>>> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
>>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>>> >>
>>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level
>>> and
>>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
>>> >> hide the traces
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you think?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
>>> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi Rainer,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I
>>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order
>>> to
>>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all
>>> >> required legal documents are there.
>>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some
>>> >> exceptions.
>>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
>>> >> confusing.
>>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the
>>> >> unit tests?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
>>> voting?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Regards
>>> >> >> Rainer
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
>>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> http://www.somatik.be
>>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.somatik.be
>>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: ready for release?
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's not
that I'm against hiding the logging either
Francis
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de> wrote:
> Hi Francis,
>
> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
> But it's a personal opinion.
> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
>
> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
>
> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains how to build with Maven.
> We could adapt this for our release.
>
> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
>
> Regards
> Rainer
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> Re: logging of unit tests
>>
>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to error
>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
>>
>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file
>> in the target folder instead of console?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Francis,
>> >
>> > thanks a lot.
>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its logical.
>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a properties
>> file.
>> >
>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting the
>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
>> benefit in having the log output there.
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Rainer
>> >
>> >
>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >> Re: revive the release process
>> >>
>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value
>> is
>> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>> >>
>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level
>> and
>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
>> >> hide the traces
>> >>
>> >> What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
>> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Rainer,
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>> >> >>
>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I
>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order
>> to
>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all
>> >> required legal documents are there.
>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some
>> >> exceptions.
>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
>> >> confusing.
>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the
>> >> unit tests?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
>> voting?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >> Rainer
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://www.somatik.be
>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.somatik.be
>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
re: ready for release?
Posted by Jörg Reiher <re...@esteam.de>.
Hi all,
I'm still alive, but I'm very very busy with my diploma thesis at the moment. So there hasn't been much input from my side...
I checked out the current trunk and I'm quite happy that everything worked like expected (did it with Eclipse+Subversive+M2Eclipse, all latest stable versions).
I'm gonna check the dev list more frequently and I'm looking forward to releasing a new version of Empire-db, cause there have been so many cool improvements since the last release.
So far,
Greetings
Joerg
> from: Rainer Döbele [mailto:doebele@esteam.de]
> date: Wednesday, 17. Juni 2009 16:24
> to: empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org
> subject: ready for release?
>
> Hi Francis,
>
> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for
> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at
> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
> But it's a personal opinion.
> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
>
> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
>
> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains how
> to build with Maven.
> We could adapt this for our release.
>
> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
>
> Regards
> Rainer
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > Re: logging of unit tests
> >
> > So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
> error
> > then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
> >
> > But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file
> > in the target folder instead of console?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Francis,
> > >
> > > thanks a lot.
> > > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
> > > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
> logical.
> > > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
> properties
> > file.
> > >
> > > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting
> the
> > debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
> > > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
> > benefit in having the log output there.
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Rainer
> > >
> > >
> > > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > >> Re: revive the release process
> > >>
> > >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value
> > is
> > >> provided these are no real exceptions.
> > >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
> > >>
> > >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level
> > and
> > >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
> > >> hide the traces
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
> > >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Hi Rainer,
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
> Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
> > >> >>
> > >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently,
> I
> > >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in
> order
> > to
> > >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all
> > >> required legal documents are there.
> > >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> > >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including
> some
> > >> exceptions.
> > >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
> > >> confusing.
> > >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running
> the
> > >> unit tests?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> > >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
> > voting?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards
> > >> >> Rainer
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > http://www.somatik.be
> > >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> http://www.somatik.be
> > >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.somatik.be
> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
ready for release?
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Francis,
well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
But it's a personal opinion.
Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
Is there anything else we can or must supply.
Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains how to build with Maven.
We could adapt this for our release.
@Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
Regards
Rainer
Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> Re: logging of unit tests
>
> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to error
> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
>
> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file
> in the target folder instead of console?
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> wrote:
> > Hi Francis,
> >
> > thanks a lot.
> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its logical.
> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a properties
> file.
> >
> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting the
> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
> benefit in having the log output there.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Regards
> > Rainer
> >
> >
> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> >> Re: revive the release process
> >>
> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value
> is
> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
> >>
> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level
> and
> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
> >> hide the traces
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
> >> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi Rainer,
> >> >
> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
> >> >>
> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I
> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order
> to
> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
> >> >>
> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all
> >> required legal documents are there.
> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some
> >> exceptions.
> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
> >> confusing.
> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the
> >> unit tests?
> >> >>
> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
> voting?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> Rainer
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > http://www.somatik.be
> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.somatik.be
> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: logging of unit tests
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to error
then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file
in the target folder instead of console?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de> wrote:
> Hi Francis,
>
> thanks a lot.
> Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
> I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its logical.
> Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a properties file.
>
> The output is much better, however I would even consider setting the debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
> The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much benefit in having the log output there.
> What do you think?
>
> Regards
> Rainer
>
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> Re: revive the release process
>>
>> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value is
>> provided these are no real exceptions.
>> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>>
>> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level and
>> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
>> hide the traces
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
>> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Rainer,
>> >
>> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>> >>
>> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I
>> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order to
>> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>> >>
>> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all
>> required legal documents are there.
>> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some
>> exceptions.
>> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
>> confusing.
>> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the
>> unit tests?
>> >>
>> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for voting?
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Rainer
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://www.somatik.be
>> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.somatik.be
>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
logging of unit tests
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Francis,
thanks a lot.
Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its logical.
Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a properties file.
The output is much better, however I would even consider setting the debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much benefit in having the log output there.
What do you think?
Regards
Rainer
Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> Re: revive the release process
>
> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value is
> provided these are no real exceptions.
> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>
> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level and
> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
> hide the traces
>
> What do you think?
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
> Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rainer,
> >
> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
> >>
> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I
> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order to
> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
> >>
> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all
> required legal documents are there.
> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some
> exceptions.
> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
> confusing.
> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the
> unit tests?
> >>
> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for voting?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Rainer
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.somatik.be
> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: revive the release process
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value is
provided these are no real exceptions.
Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level and
not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
hide the traces
What do you think?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
Brabandere<fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de> wrote:
>> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>>
>> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order to be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>>
>> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all required legal documents are there.
>> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some exceptions.
>> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are confusing.
>> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the unit tests?
>>
>> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for voting?
>>
>> Regards
>> Rainer
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.somatik.be
> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: revive the release process
Posted by Francis De Brabandere <fr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rainer,
I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<do...@esteam.de> wrote:
> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>
> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order to be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>
> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all required legal documents are there.
> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some exceptions.
> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are confusing.
> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the unit tests?
>
> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for voting?
>
> Regards
> Rainer
>
>
--
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.