You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> on 2007/01/24 21:33:55 UTC
Where should we put Samples and Plug-ins?
As part of the discussion on G2728 relating to the Directory server and
LDAP-Demo sample -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2728
I'm wondering how others would like to see us handle optional server
components for 2.0, as we currently have some samples and plug-ins in
geronimo/server/trunk/, but others are under geronimo/samples/trunk and
geronimo/plugins/trunk.
Should we:
1) Move them out of geronimo/server/trunk and
- move all sample apps (like Magicgball, ldap-demo, ...) to the
existing geronimo/samples/trunk and have them automatically built and
published by gbuild
- move all optional and non-Geronimo plugins (like ApacheDS) to the
existing geronimo/plugins/trunk and have then built and published by gbuild
2) Keep all the samples and plug-ins in the server tree, but under a new
directory like server/trunk/samples or server/trunk/opt and use a maven
profile so they are not always built, but always build and publish them
from gbuild
I could also see us moving the minimal assemblies to the same location
as #2, for those people interested in them....
Thoughts?
-Donald
Re: Where should we put Samples and Plug-ins?
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
My preference for option #2 really had more to do with where the
optional modules (like directory, clustering, etc) should go than
where the samples should go. I think we're in agreement that the
samples should go into samples/trunk. I created GERONIMO-2784 to
outline what I think are the right steps to make that happen. Please
review that JIRA and provide feedback if necessary.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 1/26/07, Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is how I see it. The apps in geronimo/server/trunk/applications
> should be the ones that are absolutely required by the server. Eg:
> console, welcome app etc.
>
> The optional apps like servlet-examples, jsp-examples should be moved
> elsewhere to a samples directory or project. There is no need to build
> these samples every time we build the server. This will greatly reduce
> our build time.
>
> Next, I don't know why we make "car" out some of these example apps.
> If we need to include a few of them in the assembly, we should just
> "deploy" them.
>
> Lastly, there is the Q about where the optional samples end up:
>
> 1. geronimo/server/trunk/samples
> Pros:
> a) samples version closely tied with the server.
>
> Cons:
> a) increases the time it takes to download the server tree
> unnecessarily. (svn checkout)
> b) have to use a separate profile to build them. More pom.xml
> maintenance. This is assuming the fact that we don't build "car" for
> these. If we have to build "car" too, then the story becomes more
> complex.
>
> 2. geronimo/samples/trunk
> Pros:
> a) separate tree built and published separately.
> b) the server tree now builds faster.
> c) if assemblies need to include it, just add the artifact as a dependency.
>
> Cons:
> a) have to keep the version of this project in synch with the
> version of the server. (Not really a big deal, similar to what we
> could with specs). This means keeping the plans and DD updated with
> every server release.
>
> With every server release, we have broken the samples on the wiki
> page. The plans and DD have changed and we have not kept that
> updated.
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
>
>
>
> On 1/25/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Any thoughts on what we do with the new Samples being added to
> > /geronimo/samples/trunk and the /geronimo/plugins/trunk files?
> >
> > We currently have 5 places for samples and plugins (the above 2
> > locations plus server/applications, server/configs and
> > geronimo/daytrader) and I would like to spend some time getting all of
> > this "optional" code (except for maybe Daytrader) into the same location
> > in svn before we release 2.0.
> >
> >
> > -Donald
> >
> > Paul McMahan wrote:
> > > Thanks Donald for migrating this discussion onto dev@. I posted some
> > > feedback about option #1 in the JIRA you referenced. To sum up, I was
> > > concerned about moving optional modules to an area called "plugins",
> > > since IMO that's a misnomer since optional modules aren't always
> > > plugins and plugins aren't always optional :-) I am also concerned
> > > about complicating release management for optional modules that are
> > > sensitive to the Geronimo server version.
> > >
> > > I think we can solve the problem described in G2728 without
> > > reorganizing the source tree, for example by adjusting the server
> > > dependencies. But if there is also some motivation to further trim
> > > down what's in server/trunk (to speed up the build, perhaps) then I
> > > like option #2 better.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 1/24/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> As part of the discussion on G2728 relating to the Directory server and
> > >> LDAP-Demo sample -
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2728
> > >> I'm wondering how others would like to see us handle optional server
> > >> components for 2.0, as we currently have some samples and plug-ins in
> > >> geronimo/server/trunk/, but others are under geronimo/samples/trunk and
> > >> geronimo/plugins/trunk.
> > >>
> > >> Should we:
> > >> 1) Move them out of geronimo/server/trunk and
> > >> - move all sample apps (like Magicgball, ldap-demo, ...) to the
> > >> existing geronimo/samples/trunk and have them automatically built and
> > >> published by gbuild
> > >> - move all optional and non-Geronimo plugins (like ApacheDS) to the
> > >> existing geronimo/plugins/trunk and have then built and published by
> > >> gbuild
> > >>
> > >> 2) Keep all the samples and plug-ins in the server tree, but under a new
> > >> directory like server/trunk/samples or server/trunk/opt and use a maven
> > >> profile so they are not always built, but always build and publish them
> > >> from gbuild
> > >>
> > >> I could also see us moving the minimal assemblies to the same location
> > >> as #2, for those people interested in them....
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -Donald
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Where should we put Samples and Plug-ins?
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
This is how I see it. The apps in geronimo/server/trunk/applications
should be the ones that are absolutely required by the server. Eg:
console, welcome app etc.
The optional apps like servlet-examples, jsp-examples should be moved
elsewhere to a samples directory or project. There is no need to build
these samples every time we build the server. This will greatly reduce
our build time.
Next, I don't know why we make "car" out some of these example apps.
If we need to include a few of them in the assembly, we should just
"deploy" them.
Lastly, there is the Q about where the optional samples end up:
1. geronimo/server/trunk/samples
Pros:
a) samples version closely tied with the server.
Cons:
a) increases the time it takes to download the server tree
unnecessarily. (svn checkout)
b) have to use a separate profile to build them. More pom.xml
maintenance. This is assuming the fact that we don't build "car" for
these. If we have to build "car" too, then the story becomes more
complex.
2. geronimo/samples/trunk
Pros:
a) separate tree built and published separately.
b) the server tree now builds faster.
c) if assemblies need to include it, just add the artifact as a dependency.
Cons:
a) have to keep the version of this project in synch with the
version of the server. (Not really a big deal, similar to what we
could with specs). This means keeping the plans and DD updated with
every server release.
With every server release, we have broken the samples on the wiki
page. The plans and DD have changed and we have not kept that
updated.
Cheers
Prasad
On 1/25/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Any thoughts on what we do with the new Samples being added to
> /geronimo/samples/trunk and the /geronimo/plugins/trunk files?
>
> We currently have 5 places for samples and plugins (the above 2
> locations plus server/applications, server/configs and
> geronimo/daytrader) and I would like to spend some time getting all of
> this "optional" code (except for maybe Daytrader) into the same location
> in svn before we release 2.0.
>
>
> -Donald
>
> Paul McMahan wrote:
> > Thanks Donald for migrating this discussion onto dev@. I posted some
> > feedback about option #1 in the JIRA you referenced. To sum up, I was
> > concerned about moving optional modules to an area called "plugins",
> > since IMO that's a misnomer since optional modules aren't always
> > plugins and plugins aren't always optional :-) I am also concerned
> > about complicating release management for optional modules that are
> > sensitive to the Geronimo server version.
> >
> > I think we can solve the problem described in G2728 without
> > reorganizing the source tree, for example by adjusting the server
> > dependencies. But if there is also some motivation to further trim
> > down what's in server/trunk (to speed up the build, perhaps) then I
> > like option #2 better.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Paul
> >
> > On 1/24/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> As part of the discussion on G2728 relating to the Directory server and
> >> LDAP-Demo sample -
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2728
> >> I'm wondering how others would like to see us handle optional server
> >> components for 2.0, as we currently have some samples and plug-ins in
> >> geronimo/server/trunk/, but others are under geronimo/samples/trunk and
> >> geronimo/plugins/trunk.
> >>
> >> Should we:
> >> 1) Move them out of geronimo/server/trunk and
> >> - move all sample apps (like Magicgball, ldap-demo, ...) to the
> >> existing geronimo/samples/trunk and have them automatically built and
> >> published by gbuild
> >> - move all optional and non-Geronimo plugins (like ApacheDS) to the
> >> existing geronimo/plugins/trunk and have then built and published by
> >> gbuild
> >>
> >> 2) Keep all the samples and plug-ins in the server tree, but under a new
> >> directory like server/trunk/samples or server/trunk/opt and use a maven
> >> profile so they are not always built, but always build and publish them
> >> from gbuild
> >>
> >> I could also see us moving the minimal assemblies to the same location
> >> as #2, for those people interested in them....
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> -Donald
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Where should we put Samples and Plug-ins?
Posted by Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com>.
Any thoughts on what we do with the new Samples being added to
/geronimo/samples/trunk and the /geronimo/plugins/trunk files?
We currently have 5 places for samples and plugins (the above 2
locations plus server/applications, server/configs and
geronimo/daytrader) and I would like to spend some time getting all of
this "optional" code (except for maybe Daytrader) into the same location
in svn before we release 2.0.
-Donald
Paul McMahan wrote:
> Thanks Donald for migrating this discussion onto dev@. I posted some
> feedback about option #1 in the JIRA you referenced. To sum up, I was
> concerned about moving optional modules to an area called "plugins",
> since IMO that's a misnomer since optional modules aren't always
> plugins and plugins aren't always optional :-) I am also concerned
> about complicating release management for optional modules that are
> sensitive to the Geronimo server version.
>
> I think we can solve the problem described in G2728 without
> reorganizing the source tree, for example by adjusting the server
> dependencies. But if there is also some motivation to further trim
> down what's in server/trunk (to speed up the build, perhaps) then I
> like option #2 better.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On 1/24/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> As part of the discussion on G2728 relating to the Directory server and
>> LDAP-Demo sample -
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2728
>> I'm wondering how others would like to see us handle optional server
>> components for 2.0, as we currently have some samples and plug-ins in
>> geronimo/server/trunk/, but others are under geronimo/samples/trunk and
>> geronimo/plugins/trunk.
>>
>> Should we:
>> 1) Move them out of geronimo/server/trunk and
>> - move all sample apps (like Magicgball, ldap-demo, ...) to the
>> existing geronimo/samples/trunk and have them automatically built and
>> published by gbuild
>> - move all optional and non-Geronimo plugins (like ApacheDS) to the
>> existing geronimo/plugins/trunk and have then built and published by
>> gbuild
>>
>> 2) Keep all the samples and plug-ins in the server tree, but under a new
>> directory like server/trunk/samples or server/trunk/opt and use a maven
>> profile so they are not always built, but always build and publish them
>> from gbuild
>>
>> I could also see us moving the minimal assemblies to the same location
>> as #2, for those people interested in them....
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Where should we put Samples and Plug-ins?
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Donald for migrating this discussion onto dev@. I posted some
feedback about option #1 in the JIRA you referenced. To sum up, I was
concerned about moving optional modules to an area called "plugins",
since IMO that's a misnomer since optional modules aren't always
plugins and plugins aren't always optional :-) I am also concerned
about complicating release management for optional modules that are
sensitive to the Geronimo server version.
I think we can solve the problem described in G2728 without
reorganizing the source tree, for example by adjusting the server
dependencies. But if there is also some motivation to further trim
down what's in server/trunk (to speed up the build, perhaps) then I
like option #2 better.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 1/24/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As part of the discussion on G2728 relating to the Directory server and
> LDAP-Demo sample -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2728
> I'm wondering how others would like to see us handle optional server
> components for 2.0, as we currently have some samples and plug-ins in
> geronimo/server/trunk/, but others are under geronimo/samples/trunk and
> geronimo/plugins/trunk.
>
> Should we:
> 1) Move them out of geronimo/server/trunk and
> - move all sample apps (like Magicgball, ldap-demo, ...) to the
> existing geronimo/samples/trunk and have them automatically built and
> published by gbuild
> - move all optional and non-Geronimo plugins (like ApacheDS) to the
> existing geronimo/plugins/trunk and have then built and published by gbuild
>
> 2) Keep all the samples and plug-ins in the server tree, but under a new
> directory like server/trunk/samples or server/trunk/opt and use a maven
> profile so they are not always built, but always build and publish them
> from gbuild
>
> I could also see us moving the minimal assemblies to the same location
> as #2, for those people interested in them....
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
>