geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Samples release process
Date Thu, 22 May 2008 04:18:24 GMT

On May 21, 2008, at 11:19 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> On May 21, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> I've been stuck attempting to use the maven-release-plugin for  
>> samples for a few reasons.  I would like go ahead and create a  
>> branch for this release which will later be converted to a tag (the  
>> old fashioned way). Are there any strong objects? (Note: I'm asking  
>> because of this sentence in our release process doc - "...most  
>> smaller projects such as specs, plugins, components, and most  
>> likely tools should avoid the complexity of branches unless clearly  
>> necessary and agreed upon." )
>> Here are the problems that I'm having using the release-plugin/ 
>> process:
>> 1) There is a version property defined in the root pom to match the  
>> release version.  The maven-release-plugin will not change this  
>> version property (just the version element in the root pom) during  
>> mvn release:prepare
>> I attempted to remove the version property but it appears this is  
>> used to generate the directory to scan by the jasper builder as I  
>> get the following error when I attempt to remove it.
>> [INFO]  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [INFO] Could not scan directory for TLD files: jar:file:/Users/bohn/ 
>> geronimo-samples-2.1/samples/CustomerService/CustomerService-jetty/ 
>> target/repository/org/apache/geronimo/samples/CustomerService-jetty/ 
>> ${version}/CustomerService-jetty-${version}.car/CustomerService- 
>> ejb-2.1-SNAPSHOT.jar!/META-INF Illegal character in path at index  
>> 153: file:/Users/bohn/geronimo-samples-2.1/samples/CustomerService/ 
>> CustomerService-jetty/target/repository/org/apache/geronimo/samples/ 
>> CustomerService-jetty/${version}/CustomerService-jetty-$ 
>> {version}.car/CustomerService-ejb-2.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
>> Attempting to change this version property manually prior to  
>> release didn't work either.  Apparently, the maven-release does a  
>> build prior to the svn changes (which fails with a manual change)  
>> and after the svn changes (which fails without the manual change).
>> BTW, we have this same version property defined in the server root  
>> pom.
> This is a problem we'll have to solve to release the server with the  
> release plugin.  I thought I'd dealt with it successfully in the  
> apacheds plugin release but maybe not....

yup, this was due to someone trying hard to mess up the c-m-p by  
including part of the environment element that it generates  
correctly.  After I removed them (in trunk) the ${version} property is  
not needed.
>> 2)  When using the maven-release-plugin I have to specify the  
>> release and the new snapshot version.  The release default is fine  
>> because we are currently using 2.1-SNAPSHOT and so the release will  
>> be 2.1. However, I must manually specify the development release to  
>> 2.1.1-SNAPSHOT or it will default to 2.2-SNAPSHOT.  This isn't a  
>> big problem but it is annoying (especially since I have to enter  
>> that value 78 times ... once for each artifact).  Newer versions of  
>> the maven-release-plugin have parms to override these versions on  
>> the command line but the version included in genesis 1.4 does not.
> I think there's a configuration setting so you only have to specify  
> it once.  You can set this on the command line although I think its  
> better to include in the samples root pom (or the next version of  
> genesis).
> -DautoVersionSubmodules=true
>> 3) This isn't necessary a problem but it doesn't seem right to me.   
>> When The scm entries are updated for a tag with the name:
>> -
>> I understand why this based upon the release-plugin structure.   
>> However the name doesn't seem intuitive to me.  I think a structure  
>> that matches our server structure makes much more sense.  So I  
>> would prefer:
>> - (with  
>> or without the .0)
>> I think this makes much more sense and more clearly matches the  
>> samples to the server (and we indicated on earlier threads that we  
>> wanted to keep these in sync).
> While it isn't what we've been doing by hand I am 100% in favor of  
> following maven default behavior unless it breaks stuff.  We don't  
> need to look different from everyone else.
>> 4) I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that we should merge  
>> the samples svn back into the server svn.  I see little advantage  
>> in keeping these independent and a lot of problems in doing so.  If  
>> I can convince folks that is the right thing to do then it doesn't  
>> make much sense to get the samples releasing with the maven-release- 
>> plugin while the server is still released manually.
>> Some reasons I think the samples should be merged back into the  
>> server svn.
>> - The samples are tied to a particular server release.
>> - It's important to have samples available ASAP with a server  
>> release. Tying these together would ensure that they are available  
>> in conjunction with the server release (you can't do any better  
>> than that).
>> - The samples are versioned to match the server and this would make  
>> it a no-brainer to keep them in sync.
>> - Samples could take advantage of the dependency management in  
>> server root pom to ensure that everything is in sync with the  
>> server.  As it stands now dependency versions for samples are  
>> spread across numerous poms and managed independently from the  
>> server.
>> - We have had 0 success to date releasing samples independently of  
>> the server.
> I don't buy this.  IMO we should be working hard so that samples  
> don't need to be updated and released for every server release.  I  
> think we also agreed that our long term direction should be that the  
> server plugins are generally built and released independently of a  
> server.  Adding more stuff to the giant monolithic server build is  
> against this goal.
> One thing that might help here is to specify includeVersion false in  
> the car-maven-plugin configuration.  We'd have to see if the plugins  
> still worked :-)
> I'll take a look and see if I can figure out what is going on with  
> the ${version} property.

I fixed this in trunk.

I'm not ok with releasing with the datasources set up the way they  
are, with the generic tranql connector.  I would really prefer we  
provide say a derby and postgres database plugin for samples and  
depend on the derby one in all the samples and have the postgres  
(e.g.) one replace it.  This would be a nice demonstration of  
recommended best practices and if someone doesn't want to use a sample  
app plugin directly they can always install the db plugin they want.

If there are no objections and no volunteers I'll set this up.  If  
there's a volunteer I can answer any questions.  The roller plugin is  
set up to do this.

If people don't like this we could use a derby specific tranql adapter.

My comment about "no branches" in the release guidelines would in this  
case result in removing samples/branches/2.1, changing the version in  
trunk back to 2.1-SNAPSHOT and releasing directly from trunk.  I think  
this is a really good idea.

Before this stuff gets released I would like to know what happens if  
we set includeVersions=false... do the samples still work?  If they do  
I think the samples are likely to keep working on 2.1.1, 2.1.2 etc  
etc.  This might even be a reasonable compatibility test for 2.1.x,  

Are there any automated tests to see what happens when you deploy the  
sample plugins?  If not, would it be worth setting up something sort  
of like testsuite that starts up say the framework server and installs  
the plugin?  (framework so jetty or tomcat can be pulled in as  

david jencks

> thanks
> david jencks
>> Regarding #4 ... I would get 2.1 samples and 2.1.1 samples released  
>> independently and then suggest we merge the samples under the  
>> server svn in branches/2.1 and trunk.  We don't need to decide #4  
>> right away since we still have to get 2.1 & possibly 2.1.1 out the  
>> door.  The only advantage I can think of in keeping them  
>> independent is the ability to build samples without building the  
>> server but as I mentioned in another post I don't believe this is  
>> possible anyway at the moment.
>> Joe

View raw message