geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: plugin repository for 2.1.1
Date Wed, 07 May 2008 17:44:37 GMT
Donald Woods wrote:
> Seems that we need a unique plugin repo for each release, given how we 
> now build plugins based on the content in pom.xml instead of supplying a 
> separate plugin file....  Maybe there are some additional 
> car-maven-plugin enhancements needed, so you can define a range or that 
> any sever release is supported by the plugin/car being built.  Or maybe 
>  as David Jencks has suggested elsewhere, we need to setup the 
> in each server release to alias prior 
> releases (like 2.1 and 2.1.1) to the current release (which would be 
> 2.1.2 for the next release.)

Heh ... funny you should mention this now.  I came the same conclusion 
yesterday as well (ie. we need a catalog per release given our current 
process for creating the plugins).  I've decided that we need a catalog 
per release for those already out the door and we can think of getting 
more creative for future releases.


> -Donald
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> I've got some questions (and possibly some issues) with the plugin 
>> repository for Geronimo 2.1.1.  I went out there attempting to update 
>> the plugin catalog after the release of 2.1.1 (as I had done after 2.1 
>> was released).  However, I hit some issues and have some questions:
>> 1) I learned too late that the download plugin repository list should 
>> have been changed before we cut the release if we wanted the unique 
>> catalog for 2.1.1 plugins to be the default (specified in 
>> framework/configs/plugin/pom.xml).  As it stands now, the default 
>> plugin catalog for Geronimo 2.1.1 is pointing to the catalog for 
>> Geronimo 2.1.
>> 2) Perhaps sharing the plugin catalog is the correct thing. I'm really 
>> not sure if that is best (or even possible).  Can we have one catalog 
>> support multiple Geronimo releases?  ... I would presume we could.   
>> Is that what people were assuming or is the assumption a catalog per 
>> release?
>> 3) Assuming we should have our own catalog for G 2.1.1 .... I created 
>> one and put it under out there under 
>> geronimo/site/trunk/docs/plugins/geronimo-2.1.1/.  Naturally, you must 
>> manually add the catalog for 2.1.1 since the default wasn't updated 
>> prior to the release.
>> 4) The catalog from #3 seems to work but I think I need to update some 
>> of the plugins (esp. samples) so that they are supported on Geronimo 
>> 2.1.1.  So it appears that regardless of if we have shared or unique 
>> catalogs among releases we will need to update the plugins to support 
>> the newer releases if they are shared.  Is that correct?  (I 
>> specifically attempted to install the 2.1-SNAPSHOT jsp sample which 
>> failed in 2.1.1 due to missing 2.1 dependencies).
>> I was a bit thrown off by all of this since we didn't have to make the 
>> same change for the download list when Geronimo 2.1 was released even 
>> though we did update the catalog.  This was because the version of the 
>> catalog was already specified as 2.1 even while the server itself was 
>> still 2.1-SNAPSHOT.  I wonder if it is wise to have the catalog listed 
>> as if released even when the dependent server (and plugins) are not. 
>> BTW, this is also the current case for Geronimo 2.2 and it's catalog. 
>> Thoughts?
>> Joe

View raw message