aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From zoe slattery <>
Subject Re: Release by module - proposal?
Date Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:07:47 GMT
On 01/03/2011 12:43, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
> On 1 March 2011 11:36, Guillaume Nodet<>  wrote:
>> I'm really lost.  I thought you absolutely wanted a per-bundle release
>> cycle and now you're advocating a single release with everything
>> inside.  Could you please clarify ?
> I'm not advocating a single release. I'm advocating having less
> distributions than Zoe's
> proposal requires. Zoe's proposal says we have a distribution per
> current module and I am
> suggesting we want less than that. A distribution that will give you
> everything you need for
> blueprint, a distribution with everything you need for applications etc.
I think I agree. So, I suggest that we'd do release by bundles, but have 
the following 'distributions'

- blueprint (includes all of the aries-* jars that blueprint needs)
- application-runtime (includes all of the aries-* jars required for a 
non-isolating runtime)
- application-runtime-isolated (includes all of the aries-* jars 
required for a isolating runtime)
- samples (a distribution of the samples, including source, in which the 
samples assembly projects include a specific set of aries bundles)

This makes more sense to me than including source in a distribution. And 
I _think_ it meets the most likely users' requirement of knowing what 
bundles the need.

>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:10, Alasdair Nottingham<>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I like option 2. I would also suggest we have a courser grained
>>> distribution model. I do not see a need to release proxy and quiesce
>>> distributions. I think it would be useful to release blueprint,
>>> application and jndi distributions though that pulled in dependencies.
>>> So a blueprint distribution would contain blueprint + proxy + util,
>>> and jndi would be jndi + proxy + util, and so on. This would make it
>>> easier for people to get "something that works" than it is today, but
>>> it doesn't result in lots and lots of distributions. I do not think we
>>> need a distribution per module.
>>> Alasdair
>>> On 28 February 2011 11:36, 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 :
>>>> contains the build-able source for the whole proxy module, and, under
>>>> 'bundles', the proxy jars corresponding to the release.
>>>> I'd like some feedback on a couple of things:
>>>> (a) Do people feel it's necessary to have the buildable module source in
>>>> distro? I ask this because this is the part that's been very had to do. Just
>>>> collecting up the bundles is very easy.
>>>> (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.
>>>> Zoė
>>>>   <>
>>> --
>>> Alasdair Nottingham
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog:
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA

View raw message