geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Restructuring build for flexible server
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:05:37 GMT
This looks great!

I had a couple of suggestions I mentioned to Prasad on IRC:
- move client-transaction to the plugins/connector
- move the jetty specific clustering stuff from plugins/clustering to  

Unfortunately the sandbox doesn't seem to have svn  history.  I think  
its essential to preserve svn history.  I think we can get this into  
trunk, preserve svn history, and hopefully preserve Prasad's sanity by:

1. create the new directories in trunk (e.g. framework, plugins/ 
connector, plugins/* etc)
2. svn cp the existing modules and configs to their new locations.   
This is probably the hard part.... I guess I'd start with the output  
of ls modules configs and write a script.
3. copy the new and modified poms (and other files) from restructure  
to trunk.  If we copy rather than svn cp modified files we wont break  
history.  Also, as long as we don't modify the root pom, all work up  
to here can be committed without affecting the existing build.
4. after committing the modified root pom, remove modules and configs.

I'm in favor of asking Prasad to do steps 1-3 immediately in trunk.   
I'm fine with (4) too but perhaps we should have a vote on (4) since  
this is a pretty large change?

david jencks

On Oct 29, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:

> I ran the tck smoketest (both Jetty & Tomcat) on the restructured
> build and the results were consistent with the ones from the current
> trunk build.
> What are the next steps ?  If we plan to use this tree for 2.1 trunk,
> then we should merge ASAP before the trees get too much out of synch.
> I'd appreciate if folks checked out the restructure dir from sandbox
> and built the new tree.
> The steps are listed here again
> 1) begin with a good local repository for your trunk build.
> 2) delete applications, assemblies, modules, geronimo, configs,
> plugins and mavenplugin dirs under .m2/org/apache/geronimo dir of your
> local repo.
> 3) svn co 
> restructure
> 4) mvn -o -Dstage=bootstrap
> 5) mvn -o -Dstage=assemble
> P.S: If jee-specs and myfaces modules fail to build due to missing
> o.a.myfaces.core/myfaces-* dependencies, just build those in the
> online mode.
> Cheers
> Prasad
> On 10/29/07, Joe Bohn <> wrote:
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>> I think we really need to find some way to break the specs into  
>>> smaller
>>> pieces.  Having to install all of the JEE specs just for the simple
>>> minimal web container assembly is ugly and wastes disk space.
>> Well, we could have a config per spec ... but that might be a bit too
>> much.  I'm not sure what smaller organizations would look like.
>> We thought about breaking jee-specs up when we created the minimal
>> assemblies but at the time it didn't seem worthy of the effort.  Now
>> that we are getting closer to making the flexible server a reality
>> perhaps it is time.  But I'm still not convinced that it would be  
>> worth
>> the complexities it would bring and it doesn't consume a huge  
>> amount of
>> space.
>> Joe
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> Good work!!  A couple comments inline.
>>>> On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>>>>> I spend most of the weekend trying to restructure trunk to  
>>>>> reflect the
>>>>> new flexible server and I should tell you, it has been one  
>>>>> shitty job
>>>>> much akin to untangling the knots of Medusa's hair.
>>>>> To begin with I wanted to build just the modules and configs  
>>>>> (along
>>>>> with the necessary buildsupport and  maven-plugins artifacts)  
>>>>> that go
>>>>> into a framework assembly.I believe that if we effectively want to
>>>>> restructure the build tree to reflect the flexible server, then we
>>>>> should be able to build just the framework artifacts ONLY. The
>>>>> framework artifacts should not have a dependency on plugins  
>>>>> artifacts
>>>>> because they are optionally choosen to build an assembly of  
>>>>> choice.
>>>>> Also, if our strategic vision is to break down the tree into  
>>>>> smaller
>>>>> projects for framework, plugins etc, this we should break this
>>>>> cyclical dependency too. See Jason's response here -
>>>>> post=12460948&framed=y&skin=134
>>>>> First hitch - Our framework assembly contains jee-specs car.  
>>>>> This car
>>>>> has a dependency on o.a.myfaces.core/myfaces-api jar. Either  
>>>>> this is
>>>>> in a incorrect dependency which we don't need at this point or it
>>>>> might be truly needed here so that it gets in the classpath for  
>>>>> later
>>>>> use. I commented this dependency out and proceeded to build jee- 
>>>>> specs
>>>>> car. I strongly tend to believe that this myfaces dep is wrongly
>>>>> placed here. If it is really req'd then we have a bigger  
>>>>> problem of
>>>>> fixing our classloader scheme.
>>>> I don't understand the problem here and what you want to do.  We  
>>>> have
>>>> several other specs (from axis and jstl) that we don't build  
>>>> that are
>>>> included in jee-specs.  Is the jsf api different from these in some
>>>> way?  Do you want to remove the jsf spec from jee-specs or the
>>>> jee-specs from the framework assembly?  I remember having a lot of
>>>> classloader problems trying to get stuff to run and pass the tck
>>>> before we came up with the jee-specs module, but it might be  
>>>> possible
>>>> to split it up and put the jars with the implementations that use
>>>> them.  I think this will be difficult so I'd like to postpone that.
>>>>> Second hitch - Trying to build framework assembly's
>>>>> server-security-config car requires you to build j2ee-deployer.  
>>>>> If you
>>>>> wish to build j2ee-deployer, it pulls in other j2ee-* modules  
>>>>> and cars
>>>>> which in turn has a dependency on webservices. Slowly we are  
>>>>> building
>>>>> more and more plugins which are optional artifacts.
>>>> This is definitely a problem.  I think we can solve it with a
>>>> security-deployer config that has the security related gbeans from
>>>> j2ee-deployer in it.  What do you think?
>>>>> If we really have to build a lot of plugins just to build the
>>>>> framework artifacts, then there is little point in  
>>>>> restructuring the
>>>>> build tree now or breaking the tree later.
>>>>> I have checked in the restructured code under sandbox/ 
>>>>> restructure. I
>>>>> have been able to do a bootstrap build thus far.
>>>>> To build this on your machine, take the following steps
>>>>> 1) begin with a good local repository for your trunk build
>>>>> 2) delete applications, assemblies, modules, geronimo, configs,
>>>>> plugins and mavenplugin dirs under .m2/org/apache/geronimo dir  
>>>>> of your
>>>>> local repo.
>>>>> 3) svn co 
>>>>> restructure
>>>>> 4) mvn -o -Dstage=bootstrap
>>>>> 5) mvn -o -Dstage=assembly  <---- You should fail here
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> david jencks
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Prasad

View raw message