geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Independently version transaction and connector
Date Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:08:46 GMT
On Aug 10, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> On Aug 10, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I wanted to get a general sense before discussing the details,  
>> since there would be no point if were against independent  
>> versioning.  I was thinking we should put each them in a tree  
>> which is a peer to Geronimo trunk.  I also think we should  
>> generally only use released versions of the jars in Geronimo  
>> (i.e., no snapshots) for two reasons 1) it is much easier to  
>> maintain from a build perspective and 2) is will push us to do  
>> more frequent releases of them.
> I don't think that #1 is really a valid reason... IMO that is.  The  
> more trees you have to build and the more version numbers you have  
> to manage is inherently more complex and thus harder to maintain  
> from a build perspective.  The only way it might scale is if we can:
>  a) automate the entire process of multi-tree building and  
> configuration version updates
>  b) reduce the frequency of change in the decoupled components,  
> thus reducing the need to build or reversion
> (a) is a bit of work to put some more magic (and complexity) into  
> Maven2... (b) seems to be negated by your #2 to push out more  
> frequent releases... :-\

I really disagree with you on this.  I think we should be treating  
these modules (and more modules) like we do ActiveMQ.  AMQ moves at  
it's own rate, and every so often we integrate it.  For another  
example, is also how we treat commons logging.  The problems only  
occur when you are highly coupled to version specific details of a  
library, and this is why I think we should avoid SNAPSHOTS as it  
pushes you to develop more decoupled code.


View raw message