aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: Release by module - proposal?
Date Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:44:42 GMT
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 13:37, zoe slattery <> wrote:
> On 28/02/2011 12:21, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:36, zoe slattery<>
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi - After 4 or 5 days spent fighting the maven release plugin I have
>>> something that is probably worth discussing.
>>> For releasing modules I think I'm down to two options.
>>> 1) We follow Guillaume's suggestion of having release artifact versions
>>> different to bundle versions
>>>        - We can release by module as we do now
>>>        - Might have unexpected side effects where people expect the
>>> BundleVersion to be the same as the version in the artifact name.
>>>        - We release the same code more than once, with different artifact
>>> names
>>> 2) We release each bundle in a module, only where the bundle has actually
>>> changed. Then find a way to distribute bundles that we know work
>>> together.
>>>       - A bit more work to release, but not a stupid amount
>>>       - Versions in artifact names are the same as Bundle-Version
>>>       - We don't release the same code over again
>>> I have a sample of what a module distro might look like here :
>>> It
>>> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
>>> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>> That link doesn't seem to work for me.
> Sorry - spelling wrong.
>>> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>>> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in
>>> a
>>> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do.
>>> Just
>>> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
>> The source assembly has usually worked fine for me.  AFAIK, a
>> buildable source distribution is a requirement for an ASF release, but
>> the build phase does not have to be a single command, as long as you
>> can build the same artifacts somehow , it's fine.
> Yes - and it works great if we stick with the existing multi-module release.
> But if we switch to release by bundle you will get the source for each
> bundle fine, if you want the source for the _whole module_ in a distro it's
> very hard. If the distro can just be a collection of released bundles (jars)
> that we know work together - that is  easily done. Does that make sense?
>>> (b) Does option 2 seem like a reasonable way forward? I think we could
>>> construct something similar for a complete aries distro with working
>>> samples, but I haven't tried yet.
>> I think we'd need some consensus as to when we need to release the
>> uber-bundles, distros, examples and all.  It's really not clear to me
>> as to when I would release a single bundle vs examples and all.
>> Because if we don't release them, there's little point in maintaining
>> them at all.
> Yes - agreed. All I was looking at at this stage is solving the issue in a
> single module release. So the process for proxy*, in the case where the
> proxy-api has already been released would be
> 1) Release proxy-impl (depends on -api)
> 2) Release proxy-bundle (depends on -impl and -api)
> 3) Release itests
> 4) Release proxy -distro.
> The distro provides two things, (a) a set of bundles for a release which we
> know run together, (b) the source for the entire proxy module, including in
> this case, the source for -api
> I think it would be possible to create a similar sort of thing for
> aries-distro, this would include samples and a set of bundles that the
> samples work with. I haven't tried this yet - I hope it's not as hard as
> creating the module distro was, but I expect it will be.

Maybe I'm silly, but if we add the proxy-api, don't we have a
release-per-module policy and not a release-per-bundle anymore ?
The release could then be automated using a shell / ant script ...

>>> Zoė
>>>  <>

Guillaume Nodet
Open Source SOA

View raw message