geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Independently version transaction and connector
Date Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:54:51 GMT

On Aug 10, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> 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.

I'm about two hours late for a vacation, but some quick comments...

I'm kind of hesitant about this. Makes me think of our Spec jars...  
If there are frequent Geronimo releases, how important is this?  
(sorry, i haven't read the previous notes). If Geronimo isn't  
releasing fast enough, I can imagine the hodgepodge of different  
versions -- that ends up confusing us and users... Also, we're  
already coordinating "joint" releases of TranQL, OpenEJB, etc. Isn't  
this adding more?


Are we going to make things easier for a small group, but things  
harder for everyone else?

--kevan

Mime
View raw message