geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 samples
Date Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:53:58 GMT
David Jencks wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>> 2) When to release the samples?  I think we should make an effort

>>>>>>> to release the samples concurrent with each Geronimo release.
>>>>>>> This is important because the jsp & servlet examples are

>>>>>>> referenced from within the welcome page on Geronimo.  I suppose

>>>>>>> we could remove that reference and eliminate the need to release

>>>>>>> concurrently.
>>>>>> why not move the samples back under geronimo/server, so they are

>>>>>> maintained and versioned with each release and can then be used as

>>>>>> additional testsuite tests?  If not, releasing right after a 
>>>>>> server release is fine.
>>>>> I was thinking about doing this.  It seems everybody thinks we 
>>>>> should release them together anyway so what is the real value with 
>>>>> them being split out?  Does anybody object to moving them back with 
>>>>> the server?
>>>> well, since I thought our next goal with the server build was to 
>>>> separate it into independently released plugins, I think putting the 
>>>> samples in with the main server build would be a big step backwards.
>>> Well, I agree that it would appear to be a step backwards from that 
>>> perspective.  However, it would ensure the following:
>>> 1) The samples would get released (not forgotten as has been the case 
>>> with 2.1)
>>> 2) The samples would be released concurrent with the Geronimo release 
>>> so that they are available for use, education, and documentation from 
>>> day 1.  It seems almost everybody is in favor of this.
>>> 3) They could be leveraged in the testsuite tests (as Donald pointed 
>>> out) to help validate our build and find problems earlier.
>>> I fail to see too many negatives from a practical perspective but I'm 
>>> certainly open to discussion .... I want to do what is best.
>>> Perhaps we need to refine our plugin strategy.  There are situations 
>>> where it makes sense to split things apart but there are also 
>>> situations where it might make sense to bundle things.
>>> Joe
>> Would those folks that feel strongly about not pulling these samples 
>> back into the server repo please provide some rationale for their 
>> argument as I have done for including them?  It appears that the 
>> samples were removed without much thought given to how they might 
>> eventually be released in conjunction with a server release.  I like 
>> the idea of modularity but in this case I don't see clear benefits to 
>> keeping them separate.
>> Please keep in mind that including the samples in the server source 
>> branch and releasing them concurrent with the server does not mean 
>> that they are bundled with the server.  They are still independent 
>> artifacts.  However, it would ensure that they are vetted with the 
>> server release and are available when the server release is 
>> available.  The samples are really only there to show value on top of 
>> a Geronimo server and they are tied to a specific server release (at 
>> least that is how we have managed and documented them thus far) so 
>> having released independent of the server doesn't appear to bring any 
>> value.
>> I looked back through a number of old email threads and these samples 
>> were included in the welcome page with a lot of support at the time 
>> (with a desire to have even more samples included or downloadable from 
>> the welcome page) ... several folks stating that they should be 
>> included with the server image itself.  I certainly don't want to 
>> bundle the samples with the server image but having the released with 
>> the server makes sense to me.
> I'm speculating a bit here.
> This might be similar to the testsuite being a bit monolithic.
> As a thought experiment, what if we...
> - made the welcome page a plugin, and the piece of build including it 
> also builds the samples
> - the maven generated site includes the stuff you need to download (zips 
> etc) (I think this is doable)
> - the welcome page links to the maven  generated site
> - this leaves the door open to making the welcome page + samples 
> independently versioned in the future, and possibly to selenium testing.
> - we split up the testsuite into integration tests for "plugins" or 
> plugin groups, and they assemble the servers they need on the fly
> - assemblies may or may not include the welcome page plugin.
> dunno how practical this is for 2.1.1

I don't quite understand.  So are you saying that we should move at 
least some of the samples (those referenced by the welcome page) back 
into the server svn?  Or, is it possible to have the server build also 
build sample content from another repo (and if so, how is that better 
than just merging the content)?

I think I understand the maven site reference for downloads.  However, 
that isn't exactly the same function that is intended with the welcome 
page today.  It is true that there is a link to the Geronimo site 
already for accessing "additional samples" which functions in a similar 
way to your description (only referencing the wiki).  However the links 
to the 3 special samples (jsp, servlet, and ldap-sample) launch directly 
into the samples from the welcome page if they are already installed. 
If the samples are not yet installed it give the user the choice to 
install them and and then performs the install.  The site idea is 
perhaps a good way to surface the zip content to the sample wiki doc.

I like idea of integration tests for plugin groups with custom server 
assemblies on the fly (assuming it doesn't add much to test time).  We 
can already build assemblies that do not include the welcome page (which 
is already a plugin).

View raw message