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 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:14:14 GMT

Changed back to maven 2.0.10 as Hudson now supports it.



Dejan Bosanac wrote:
> 
> 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--tp24122957p25368305.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message