geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul McMahan" <paulmcma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Where should we put Samples and Plug-ins?
Date Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:42:07 GMT
My preference for option #2 really had more to do with where the
optional modules (like directory, clustering, etc) should go than
where the samples should go.  I think we're in agreement that the
samples should go into samples/trunk.  I created GERONIMO-2784 to
outline what I think are the right steps to make that happen.  Please
review that JIRA and provide feedback if necessary.

Best wishes,
Paul

On 1/26/07, Prasad Kashyap <goyathlay.geronimo@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is how I see it. The apps in geronimo/server/trunk/applications
> should be the ones that are absolutely required by the server. Eg:
> console, welcome app etc.
>
> The optional apps like servlet-examples, jsp-examples should be moved
> elsewhere to a samples directory or project. There is no need to build
> these samples every time we build the server. This will greatly reduce
> our build time.
>
> Next, I don't know why we make "car" out some of these example apps.
> If we need to include a few of them in the assembly, we should just
> "deploy" them.
>
> Lastly, there is the Q about where the optional samples end up:
>
> 1. geronimo/server/trunk/samples
>     Pros:
>       a) samples version closely tied with the server.
>
>    Cons:
>      a) increases the time it takes to download the server tree
> unnecessarily. (svn checkout)
>      b) have to use a separate profile to build them. More pom.xml
> maintenance. This is assuming the fact that we don't build "car" for
> these. If we have to build "car" too, then the story becomes more
> complex.
>
> 2. geronimo/samples/trunk
>      Pros:
>      a) separate tree built and published separately.
>      b) the server tree now builds faster.
>      c) if assemblies need to include it, just add the artifact as a dependency.
>
>      Cons:
>      a) have to keep the version of this project in synch with the
> version of the server. (Not really a big deal, similar to what we
> could with specs). This means keeping the plans and DD updated with
> every server release.
>
> With every server release, we have broken the samples on the wiki
> page. The plans and DD have changed  and we have not kept that
> updated.
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
>
>
>
> On 1/25/07, Donald Woods <drw_web@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Any thoughts on what we do with the new Samples being added to
> > /geronimo/samples/trunk and the /geronimo/plugins/trunk files?
> >
> > We currently have 5 places for samples and plugins (the above 2
> > locations plus server/applications, server/configs and
> > geronimo/daytrader) and I would like to spend some time getting all of
> > this "optional" code (except for maybe Daytrader) into the same location
> > in svn before we release 2.0.
> >
> >
> > -Donald
> >
> > Paul McMahan wrote:
> > > Thanks Donald for migrating this discussion onto dev@.  I posted some
> > > feedback about option #1 in the JIRA you referenced.  To sum up, I was
> > > concerned about moving optional modules to an area called "plugins",
> > > since IMO that's a misnomer since optional modules aren't always
> > > plugins and plugins aren't always optional :-)   I am also concerned
> > > about complicating release management for optional modules that are
> > > sensitive to the Geronimo server version.
> > >
> > > I think we can solve the problem described in G2728 without
> > > reorganizing the source tree, for example by adjusting the server
> > > dependencies.  But if there is also some motivation to further trim
> > > down what's in server/trunk (to speed up the build, perhaps) then I
> > > like option #2 better.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 1/24/07, Donald Woods <drw_web@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> As part of the discussion on G2728 relating to the Directory server and
> > >> LDAP-Demo sample -
> > >>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2728
> > >> I'm wondering how others would like to see us handle optional server
> > >> components for 2.0, as we currently have some samples and plug-ins in
> > >> geronimo/server/trunk/, but others are under geronimo/samples/trunk and
> > >> geronimo/plugins/trunk.
> > >>
> > >> Should we:
> > >> 1) Move them out of geronimo/server/trunk and
> > >>     - move all sample apps (like Magicgball, ldap-demo, ...) to the
> > >> existing geronimo/samples/trunk and have them automatically built and
> > >> published by gbuild
> > >>     - move all optional and non-Geronimo plugins (like ApacheDS) to the
> > >> existing geronimo/plugins/trunk and have then built and published by
> > >> gbuild
> > >>
> > >> 2) Keep all the samples and plug-ins in the server tree, but under a new
> > >> directory like server/trunk/samples or server/trunk/opt and use a maven
> > >> profile so they are not always built, but always build and publish them
> > >> from gbuild
> > >>
> > >> I could also see us moving the minimal assemblies to the same location
> > >> as #2, for those people interested in them....
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -Donald
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message