geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik B. Craig" <erik.cr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 samples
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:19:06 GMT
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Jason Warner <jaw981@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Hernan Cunico <hcunico@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, from the wiki -> Geronimo documentation, there are 3main sets of
> > samples, well actually 3 now.
> >
> > 1- Migration samples
> > 2- Sample applicaitons
> > 3- Tutorials
> >
> > 1- Migration samples. These should not be in svn unless we plan to
> > maintain and test sample applications that are intended for JBoss, WebLogic,
> > WAS, Tomcat or any other platform we want to explain how to migrate from. It
> > could potentially include the need to maintain features/technologies we do
> > not support or may never support.
> >
>
> Isn't that what's already occurring?  I believe the migration samples have
> applications attached to them that are designed for JBoss and the sample
> explains how to convert it to Geronimo.  These would need to be updated
> based on the changes that occur both in JBoss and Geronimo.
>

Correct, this is what I'm working on because they haven't been really kept
up to date - and we don't want to get burned by someone trying to get
something going or migrated that we say we have support for but have no
supporting documentation or samples.
When rewriting sample apps and documentation for 2.0, they are all meant to
go from jboss to geronimo. The process involves validating functionality on
the latest JBoss release (4.2.2GA in that case), updating documentation
where necessary, updating code where necessary, and then ensuring the
migration steps are still valid, and making changes to both documentation
and code where needed.


>
>
>
> > 2- Sample applications. These are the one I think we are talking about.
> > These are intended to show the different feature implementations in Geronimo
> > and the ones we want to vote one, keep up to date, etc...
>
>
> I know that Erik at least is talking about Migration samples as well.
> Other than that, no argument here.
>
>
> >
> > 3- Tutorials. So far, all using eclipse and GEP. No necessarily
> > referring to any existing sample app. The whole point of this section, and
> > why it's kept separate from the samples, is that you'll start from scratch,
> > create a new project and anything that goes in is made by you (at most some
> > copy paste from the doc to save some time)
>
>
> I don't count tutorials in the same area as samples since no application
> is involved, but that's just semantics. ;)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Hernan
> >
> > Jason Warner wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Hernan Cunico <hcunico@gmail.com
> > > <mailto:hcunico@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Migration samples should definitively not go into svn because the
> > >     source environment, the start point for those apps is intended to
> > be
> > >     a different platform, not Geronimo. There would be no point in
> > >     keeping them into svn and adding them as a part of the release
> > process.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're suggesting the migration samples exist solely in the wiki?  The
> > > makes them a little difficult to maintain, doesn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     However there are a whole bunch of other sample apps in the doc
> > and
> > >     are G specific and those are the ones we are discussing here. Or I
> > >     need to start reading the whole thread again :P
> > >
> > >
> > > That's kind of what I was getting at.  There's really two classes of
> > > samples here and I think everyone is just lumping them together.
> >  Maybe
> > > they aren't doing it intentionally, but I think some people are
> > talking
> > > from the point of view of migration samples and some from the sample
> > > applications.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     Cheers!
> > >     Hernan
> > >
> > >     Jason Warner wrote:
> > >      > I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, so I'll throw it in
> > >     here.  So
> > >      > far, it seems that when we've been discussing samples, we're
> > >     lumping the
> > >      > sample applications and the migration samples in together.  Is
> > this
> > >      > something we want to do?  In my mind, they aren't really the
> > same and
> > >      > shouldn't necessarily be in the same place.  AFAIK, a sample
> > >     application
> > >      > is supposed to be able to be checked out, built, and deployed
> > on
> > >      > geronimo straight away to highlight some feature or
> > >     functionality.  The
> > >      > migration samples, though, are meant to be fiddled with before
> > >     they can
> > >      > be deployed on Geronimo.  If we lump them all in together, how
> > is
> > >     a user
> > >      > supposed to know which is which when browsing svn?  Would it
> > make
> > >     sense
> > >      > to keep the migration samples in a separate space?
> > >      >
> > >      > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Hernan Cunico <
> > hcunico@gmail.com
> > >     <mailto:hcunico@gmail.com>
> > >      > <mailto:hcunico@gmail.com <mailto:hcunico@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
> > >      >
> > >      >     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)
> > >      >
> > >      >     Are we using any maven site today? what type of info goes
> > >     there? who
> > >      >     consumes it?
> > >      >
> > >      >     .zip samples download shouldn't be any different from the
> > other
> > >      >     downloads we have, right?
> > >      >
> > >      >     Cheers!
> > >      >     Hernan
> > >      >
> > >      >      > - 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
> > >      >      >
> > >      >      > thanks
> > >      >      > david jencks
> > >      >      >
> > >      >      >
> > >      >      >
> > >      >      >>
> > >      >      >> Joe
> > >      >      >>
> > >      >      >>
> > >      >      >
> > >      >      >
> > >      >
> > >      >
> > >      >
> > >      >
> > >      > --
> > >      > ~Jason Warner
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Jason Warner
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Jason Warner




-- 
Erik B. Craig

Mime
View raw message