geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Naming conventions for our adapter code and plugins for external projects
Date Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:36:22 GMT
In-line below.


David Jencks wrote:
> Both Donald and I seem to feel the answer to this is obvious but we have 
> diametrically opposed points of view so maybe its time for discussion.
> 
> After endless discussion we answered a related question for our specs 
> with the following principal:
> 
> The artifactId will contain the version number of the spec
> The version will only contain the geronimo version.
> 
> I'm happy with this decision for specs.
> 
> We include a lot of other projects in geronimo, such as activemq, axis, 
> cxf, jetty, tomcat, etc etc.  These projects evolve over the years and 
> when they get to a fairly incompatible change level they generally 
> change the major version number, such as jetty 6 to jetty 7, activemq 4 
> to activemq 5, etc etc.
> 
> 1. Do we want to give our users a clue about which version of the 
> external project they are using?  If so, it has to be in the maven id 
> for our plugin that, through dependencies, installs the external project.
> 

Depends.  If existing user apps need to be migrated, then YES. 
Otherwise, no.
For example, if a 2.4 webapp that worked on Tomcat v5.5 still works 
as-is on Tomcat 6.0, then we shouldn't force users to update their plans 
just because our modules/configs have a project dependent version in it.

> 2. If so, how?  We get groupId, artifactId, version.  I don't see a 
> plausible way to use the groupId, leaving us with artifactId and version.
> 

If the newer project is not compatible with the previous, then we should 
  use an updated artifactId.

> 2.a. If so, how much detail?   E.g. do we want to tell users they are 
> getting some flavor of jetty 6 or do we want to tell them they are 
> getting jetty 6.1.14?

Just the major version number, which would be jetty6 in your example.
Otherwise, as we pickup new Tomcat 6.0.x and Jetty 6.1.x levels due to 
bug or security fixes, we would be breaking existing user apps within a 
Geronimo maintenance stream.

> 
> 2.b should the version numbering relate to the external project 
> integration or to the geronimo version it fits with?
>

External project.


> My answers to these questions:
> 
> (1) definitely YES.  We may want to offer support for more than one 
> level of the external project, and I don't think concealing major 
> changes in an external code base is a good idea.
> 
> (2)
> - Putting the first digit of the external version in the artifact Id 
> clearly indicates the general level of external project support while 
> allowing easy upgrades to later external versions within that major 
> version. These are likely to be fairly compatible so may work find with 
> artifact-aliases support rather than recompiling.  This also clearly 
> separates the geronimo portion of the version from the external project 
> version since the external project version is not part of the maven 
> version.
> - Changing major version of an external project may well  require 
> changes in code that uses the project.  It's almost certain to require 
> repackaging of plugins that run against the project; e.g. the jetty 
> gbean wrappers changed dramatically from jetty 5 to 6 and are changing 
> again from 6 to 7.
> 
> - using the external project version would result in something like a 
> version of 5.2.2.2-SNAPSHOT for our current amq 5 integration. However, 
> there are some bugs so we'll need amq 5.3 or at least 5.2.1 before we 
> release.  So we'll need 5.3.2.2-SNAPSHOT even though our integration 
> code didn't change.  I guess we could use 5.2.2-SNAPSHOT although this 
> seems very confusing compared to the amq version.
> 
> So I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how any scheme other than stuff 
> like activemq5 for the artifactId is remotely plausible.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> david jencks
> 
>  
>  
> 

Mime
View raw message