Mailing-List: contact oscar-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Mavenization
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:04:15 -0500
Message-ID: <C9B41A4AFD8DC441B8D62DA7EC801603050DFF@jis06248.jis.org>
Thread-Topic: Mavenization
Thread-Index: AcWqT8i3GDnzL700RvO1kZVyYrDV1AABQWAQ
From: "Bennett,
 Timothy (JIS - Applications)" <TimothyBennett@jis.nashville.org>
To: <oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard S. Hall [mailto:heavy@ungoverned.org]=20
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 10:07 AM
> To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Mavenization
>=20
> This current structure wasn't an attempt at a "real"=20
> structure, just getting the stuff into the repo and making it=20
> buildable.
>=20
> With the latest discussions of the repo reorg, I would fully=20
> expect the bundles to eventually move into the bundle area.
>=20

<snip/>

> You have to expect dependencies from felix.jar to osgi.jar.=20
> The reverse dependencies are a little more tricky and ugly.=20
> The ugly part is that I just grabbed the R4 sources from=20
> Eclipse since they are under EPL so that we would have them=20
> to compile against until the official R4 release comes out=20
> which will also be under EPL; Eclipse has dependencies back=20
> into their framework, so I just hacked them to get them to=20
> compile with Felix. The tricky part is that we will probably=20
> want these circular dependencies too, because this is done=20
> for optimization purposes.
>

Thanks for the explanation, Richard.  This makes more sense to me.
=20
>=20
> To me it is more of an issue of do we need the "perfect"=20
> project structure NOW to proceed or can we move forward with=20
> the project structure slowly. Clearly, everyone agrees that=20
> the current structure is inadequate for the long run. I am=20
> concerned with the short run. Heck, the ink is barely dry on=20
> the name change. :-)
>

Slow and deliberate is good.  I'm not avocating that we have all these
questions answered by the weekend, or even at a pace that the community
is uncomfortable with.  I didn't mean to come across as trying to force
a breakneck pace.  I think I've just got my head into Maven2 a lot
lately, and while I'm in here, I'm finding I've got a lot of questions.
I'm getting up to speed on Maven2 just like anyone else who is looking
to move from Ant or Maven1.

While I'm elbows deep in Maven2, it's a natural time for me to
experiment with building Felix using Maven2.  What I may have failed to
recognize is that it's not a natural time for the rest of the community.
And that's cool.

I completely agree that the project structure needs to be addressed
before we can seriously consider mavenization.  And I'm perfectly
willing to be patient with that process (backing away from my pot of
coffee).  However, from a Maven2 maturity standpoint, I do not agree
that we *have* to wait until Maven2 has a final release to begin using
it.  When the project is finally re-structured to the point of
everyone's comfortable-ness and Maven2 is still in beta, I don't think
that should hold us up from mavenizing the build and management of the
project.

> >=20
> >Flame away...
> >
>=20
> Awww, it wasn't that bad, was it?  ;-)
>=20

Not at all. :)  Thanks for your response, Richard.