activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Artemis and Eclipse...
Date Wed, 10 Jun 2015 01:43:44 GMT
Added javadoc:javadoc to the PR builder job...

John

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:19 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I found a way to not require bumping the version of maven. just add
> annotation processing to the plugin on the.
>
>
> But if someone could please add javadoc goal on the PR builds and
> build checks please? that's the only change needed for this now.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have fixed all the javadoc issues on this PR:
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22
> >
> >
> > But I had to use annotation to remove the javadoc annotations on the
> > maven-plugin. And the current maven used on the PR build is not
> > compatible with it:
> >
> > https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/
> >
> >
> >
> > So,
> >
> > @Daniel Can you bump the version at the commit build. Can you also add
> > javadoc as a goal to the build, so we won't break javadoc ever again
> > without being noticed
> > @JustinBertram: Can you do the same
> > @BruceSnyder: Can you add me to the PR user's as I requested on the
> > private list, so I won't need to ask Daniel and Justin again for this
> > kind of thing? :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I will send another commit to bump the minimal Maven version.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
> > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Both the PR build and the commit build should include a javadoc build
> >> once we fix those. It's quite easy to break javadoc refs. You just add
> >> javadocs, refactor stuff and boom.. javadoc gets broken.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> True,
> >>>>
> >>>> although I think it makes sense to fix the javadoc stuff anyways to
> >>>> not require that setting
> >>>
> >>> I started looking at this.  Definitely a lot more involved than I was
> expecting.  It was definitely the right call to add the setting to get the
> release out.
> >>>
> >>> At this point a “mvn -Pdev install” will now work without that
> setting.   That’s a good start.   The javadoc run in artemis-website now
> will run without an error. (plenty of warnings though)   However, javadoc
> in the individual modules still fails.   Since the javadoc in the modules
> is part of the deploy (and release) process, we still need the switch.
> >>>
> >>> One step at a time…..
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> I would not recommend exerting too much effort in maintaining Java
7
> >>>>> support since Java 7 is EOL.  The only type of lib I would say should
> >>>>> keep old Java support for is client libs.  There are some platforms
> >>>>> out there that don't rev that quickly (stuff like GWT, Android,
etc).
> >>>>> Would it makes sense to keep clients libs in builds outside of
> >>>>> Artemis?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The first try was using profiles but it was kind of messy. This
was
> >>>>>> done very closely to the releases and I didn't have time to
evaluate
> >>>>>> any other options back then.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If all we need is to fix javadoc, I would say we fix javadoc
and
> >>>>>> remove the java8 dependency (at least for now). I'm not sure
yet how
> >>>>>> difficult that would be though
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Do you mean the -Xdoclint:none option? Javadoc is stricter
with
> Java8
> >>>>>>> and will refuse to process things that 'worked' with Java7.
You can
> >>>>>>> make it lenient again using the -Xdoclint config option,
but that
> only
> >>>>>>> works when using Java8 and so setting it then makes javadoc
> processing
> >>>>>>> fail when building on Java7 since it doesnt understand the
new
> config
> >>>>>>> option.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When I first hit this elsewhere I just updated all the javadoc
to
> >>>>>>> remove the errors seen using Java8, allowing things to work
on 7
> or 8
> >>>>>>> without disabling doclint. You could possibly use profiles
to apply
> >>>>>>> the config selectively.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 22:23, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The only thing I remember we had to add JDK 1.8 to the
equation
> was
> >>>>>>>> some option we needed for building javadocs. Perhaps
there is a
> better
> >>>>>>>> way to solve that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Right now the codebase is not using anything specific
to JDK
> 1.8.  (I
> >>>>>>>> mean.. at least that's the idea. we could have slipped
> something.. but
> >>>>>>>> I don't recall anything specific to java8 in the codebase)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I’ve updated a bunch of things so that Artemis
now loads fairly
> easily into Eclipse without any errors for all the non-example things.    I
> haven’t attempted the examples yet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just have a couple of questions:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) In the poms, we specify that Java8 is required
to build, but
> java7 is used for the source/target.   Thus, Eclipse will pick up the Java7
> runtime.  It seems to work OK so I’m kind of wondering why we require Java8
> to build.  Maybe in the examples someplace?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2) artemis-dto has a profile for jdk-1.5.   I assume
that is not
> needed at all as there is no way it would ever be triggered.   I think the
> ibmjdk profile in there is irrelevant as well? (seems to reference things
> about differences between 1.5 and 1.6)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>>>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>>>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Hiram Chirino
> >>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daniel Kulp
> >>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> >> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> > http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message