Mailing-List: contact continuum-dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 124.108.96.113 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of rahul.thakur.xdev@gmail.com)
Message-ID: <47A02FCC.1070808@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:05:32 +1300
From: Rahul Thakur <rahul.thakur.xdev@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Continuum 2.0 Roadmap
References: <f345f3480801291434y232263d3q2257fa0fcfd82679@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f345f3480801291434y232263d3q2257fa0fcfd82679@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

Great to see version 2.0 discussions kicking off! Thanks for putting the 
ideas on confluence, Emmanuel. :-)

Some notes around the ideas outlined on the wiki:
1)  Architecture
Moving to JSE 5 and JPA is a good idea \o/, it been fairly overdue ;-).
1-1)    Can you please elaborate a bit on relationships among - 
services, various types of facades and entities. A concrete example 
would help.
1-2)    I would like to bring Guice to the mix. I think it is worth 
investigating for Continuum 2.0 - WDYT?

2) Database
I am not hard and fast on any particular JPA provider. If Toplink cuts 
it, we should go with it. I have been toying around with OpenJPA, but I 
haven't used Toplink to comment on how both compare. OpenJPA is 
comprehensively documented and has a good support available on mailing 
lists. Having said that, JPA providers would ultimately be swap'able 
under the hood.

Also, I think we should stick with JPA annotations on model entities 
instead of using Modello. I hope writing the data access code from 
scratch implies the current ContinuumStore will be refactored into 
something which is less verbose than what we have currently, and so 
would the Continuum interface.

3) Builders > Build definitions
Just thinking out loud here...
Does anyone else see the current Continuum model to be centered around 
'Project'? What do you think about 'Build' or BuildDefinition being 
central? You can add one or more Projects to a Build - we don't need 
Project Groups, as all we deal with is a Build. Order and dependency can 
be imposed on a Build composed of more than one project. Notifiers are 
added to a Build and BuildResult(s) produced for a Build.

4) Remote Builders
I like this idea, but not sure how the build results will be aggregated 
from remote builders, but may be that is something that needs some more 
thought.

5) Plugins
Is this similar to what AntHill Pro has? Are we going to have a notion 
of Build lifecycle (and phases) to support this? Is this something that 
can be borrowed in concept (and possibly implementation) from Maven?

6) External Access and UI improvements
I am +1 for supporting different types of mechanisms to access and 
control Continuum. Web interface has been the primary interface until 
now and I totally agree that it needs to be improved to give a better 
user experience. I welcome the idea of using GWT for this.

I am keen to focus more on Reporting as well for this version. As 
already outlined on the wiki, it would be nice if the reporting can be 
extended via plugins or some such mechanism.

7) Documentation
I would like to add and emphasize here on documenting the code itself as 
we write it. We are not going to get down to user documentation from day 
one but there will be users in the community who start consuming the 
code and contributing back as soon as we starting cooking it! :-)
I would like to propose having Checkstyle to flag undocumented source 
code in codebase.

8) Installation
Lastly, I think it would nice to have a core Continuum install to be 
lean and small with features that can be added by dropping in relevant 
JARs (and minimal or no configuration). We can actually try different 
options with development releases before finalizing what should go into 
the main distro (if at all we break it up) - sounds reasonable?

Thanks,
Rahul


Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
> Hi
>
> I started a document [1] with my ideas about Continuum 2.
> As you can see in this doc, I want to add lot of things in the next version.
>
> Feel free to comment on it.
>
>
> [1]
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/CONTINUUM/Continuum+2.0+Design+Discussion
>
> Emmanuel
>
>