activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>
Subject Re: intended project structure for protobuf in 6.0?
Date Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:38:01 GMT

Hi David,

is switch to maven 2.0.10 is mandatory? It makes problems with Hudson
builds, since it's still on Maven 2.0.9 (at least I couldn't make it build
with these changes).

The other option is to ask Hudson administrators to add 2.0.10 option.

Regards
Dejan


djencks wrote:
> 
> OK, I resuscitated it as a embedded project ready to move out, in rev  
> 787447.
> 
> Someone who knows more history than I needs to look at the root  
> LICENSE and NOTICE files for both activemq-flow and activemq-protobuf  
> and fix them so they are accurate for the actual code in svn.
> 
> Let me know if there are more problems...
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> 
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I think in the longer term (Before ActiveMQ 6.0 goes out the door)  
>> protobuf
>> will once again be spun out to be in it's own independently released
>> module.  For now it was brought it as we wanted to refactor some  
>> bits in for
>> the AMQ 6 stuff (for example it's Buffer abstractions are getting  
>> moved into
>> a common util module).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 4:07 AM, David Jencks  
>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>> In the sandbox 6.0, protobuf is set up as an independent project  
>>> embedded
>>> in the regular amq svn tree. This is a bad idea since svn tags of  
>>> activemq
>>> will include the protobuf code at an unrelated version number.
>>>
>>> Either protobuf should be definitely part of 6.0 and have a 6.0  
>>> version or
>>> it should be somewhere separate in svn.
>>>
>>> If you want separate projects but build convenience then check out  
>>> both
>>> projects into a common directory and put a pom there to build both  
>>> amq and
>>> protobuf and don't check that into svn.
>>>
>>> Which is intended?
>>>
>>> For now I've assumed that a common parent is intended and pretty  
>>> much cut
>>> out the protobuf-pom but left the protobuf version at 1.1- 
>>> SNAPSHOT.  This is
>>> not a suitable permanent solution.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com/
> 
> 


-----
Dejan Bosanac

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/intended-project-structure-for-protobuf-in-6.0--tp24122957p24167336.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message