geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik B. Craig" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 samples
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:38:56 GMT
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM, 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
> >>>>> 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.

Well, hey, as long as they aren't necessarily bundled with the server then
I'm pretty okay with it.
As far as the migration samples go though, this is definitely not the place
for them, as they are intended to be checked out by the user, who is then
guided through converting them to be deployed on geronimo - they aren't
necessarily able to be deployed on geronimo prior to following the
documentation, nor are they necessarily able to be compiled used maven.

> 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.
> Joe

Erik B. Craig

View raw message