geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Car plugin is fighting with maven too much
Date Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:28:51 GMT

On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> I just want to add that for Geronimo plugins, it's not very useful to
> have the car-maven-plugin write the environment into the deployment
> plan.  More often that not, you want the source tree to contain a
> fully valid and correct deployment plan, so you can easily redeploy
> the module (e.g. on the command line or hot deploy directory) without
> going through the plugin mechanics.  (This is, while you're actively
> developing and testing the new G plugin.)  That means that it's not
> acceptable for the source tree to contain a plan with an empty
> environment and rely on the car-maven-plugin to generate an output
> plan with a valid environment.  I'd be happy if there was a flag
> saying "don't write environment", and that would eliminate the need
> for a G plugin build to use the "scope=provided" in the plugin build
> POM (currently all the artifacts in the environment are listed with
> scope=provided so the build is aware of them but they are not written
> into the environment).

After spending a long time thinking the "generate the environment"  
idea was the best, I now agree with you that it's unsatisfactory.  I  
wonder if some kind of filtering might still be appropriate and  
whether we might want to add something like that to the online/ 
offline/console deployers.

>
> Anyway, I'm going to restate the problem I think you're describing
> just to make sure we're talking about the same thing.  I think the
> main problem with the car-maven-plugin is that is starts a
> mini-Geronimo server to do the deployment.

umm, that's not the problem :-)
>   Therefore, it needs all
> the core Geronimo CARs in your local repository so it can use them to
> start the server.  Those are the ones that Maven does not download on
> your behalf (therefore the comment that it only works if you've built
> G on that machine before).
> It seems like you ought to be able to list
> the deployers you care about as well as the dependency CARs/JARs, and
> Maven should download those and anything they depend on transitively,
> so it has everything it needs in order to run the server.

exactly.  This is currently not working because of the need to use  
scope "provided" in order to avoid messing up the generated  
environment element.

> Normally
> I'd say the car-maven-plugin should just list all that stuff as
> dependencies, but a single version of the car-maven-plugin can
> potentially work across several Geronimo versions, so I guess all the
> Geronimo CARs need to be resolved dynamically.  The main problem is,
> if we're on Geronimo 2.0 and you configure the car-maven-plugin for
> the Geronimo 1.2 GBean deployer, and that depends on
> */j2ee-system/*/car then it's likely to incorrectly resolve that to
> the 2.0 j2ee-system CAR, so we need some way to tell the
> car-maven-plugin to resolve all Geronimo libs to version X (and all
> OpenEJB libs to version Y, and all TranQL libs to version Z, and
> etc.).  Is that the same issue you're describing?

That's another issue.  I'm not sure how likely it will be that we can  
maintain car-maven-plugin compatibility across geronimo releases, but  
it would be nice. One thing is we'll have to be careful to leave out  
all versions from the default environment attributes in the builders,  
and from the dependencies in the varlous builder plugins.  In any  
case this would be great but is not the current problem.

>
> FWIW, several of the SF plugins have a POM that lists all the stuff
> needed to build a plugin on G 1.1.1, and I'll probably be coming up
> with a 1.2 version in the relatively near future.  If you include that
> as a module in your build it will produce an empty JAR, but it will
> cause all the needed JARs and CARs to be downloaded into your local M2
> repo so the car-maven-plugin works as expected.

This sounds similar to my proposal to have a pom with all geronimo  
artifacts listed in it.

Anyway I think we're on the same page here.

thanks
david jencks

>
> Thanks,
>      Aaron
>
> On 12/14/06, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not completely aware of what the car plugin do, but I think  
>> this is
>> pretty close to what we have done for servicemix.
>> I think we should be able to get back transitive dependencies on  
>> jars,
>> by rebuilding the full dependency graph, and excluding artifacts that
>> are already included by referenced cars.  Let me explain:
>>
>> If the following is the dependency graph (we are trying to build  
>> carA)
>>   - carA
>>      - jarB
>>          -jarC
>>      - jarD
>>      - carE
>>         - jarC
>> it is possible to load this full graph and prune it to obtain a  
>> list of *real*
>> dependencies: jarB, jarD, carE.  jarC would be removed, because it  
>> already
>> contains jarC.  To do this, we rely only on the poms of the  
>> dependencies.
>> We have already done that in servicemix maven plugin, so there's  
>> no reason
>> it could not be done for Geronimo ;)
>>
>> I'm not sure about the provided scope.  Actually, the servicemix  
>> plugin handle
>> this scope the same way as the car plugin, but the main difference is
>> that we don't
>> have the need of deployers, so things are easier.
>>
>> On 12/14/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Ever since we got close to having an m2 build we've been having
>> > problems with the car plugin overloading the maven scopes to mean
>> > something in geronimo.  This has caused endless problems, the  
>> latest
>> > of which is that in order to be able to use the car plugin outside
>> > geronimo, you have to have built geronimo on that machine so all  
>> the
>> > geronimo bits you need are sure to be there.  In more detail  
>> this is
>> > caused by the use of the provided scope to mean "don't stick this
>> > dependency in the environment".  So, if you mark a builder car as
>> > provided so it won't get stuck in the environment, maven won't
>> > download all the bits it needs to run.
>> >
>> > This is all caused by our attempt to build the environment plan
>> > element from the pom.  The main reason I wanted to do that was  
>> to be
>> > sure that if you mentioned something in the environment, maven  
>> would
>> > make sure it was available.  So, maybe it's time to take a more
>> > direct approach:
>> >
>> > How about changing the plugin so it doesn't generate the  
>> environment
>> > element, but instead verifies that all the environment dependencies
>> > are mentioned in the pom?  Among other things this will give easier
>> > control over which versions are included in the environment  
>> element.
>> >
>> > The other possible solutions to this problem I have thought of are:
>> >
>> > -- get maven to have an extensible scope system or allow dependency
>> > annotations like you could do in maven 1.  I think there's no  
>> chance
>> > of this happening before geronimo 3, but I could be wrong.
>> >
>> > -- copy the environment dependencies into the car plugin
>> > configuration.  I think this would end up being harder to deal with
>> > than validating the environment against the pom.
>> >
>> > -- write a maven project that just has dependencies on all geronimo
>> > artifacts included in any geronimo assembly, so you can build it  
>> and
>> > all the bits will be around for the car plugin to use.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks to gnodet for pointing out this problem and discussing
>> > possible solutions.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message