hadoop-zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: ZooKeeper Roadmap - 3.1.0 and beyond.
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:28:58 GMT
It would help new developers work with your project.  Maven provides a
a broad set of tools that lots of java developers have come to expect
out of a build system.  Incorporating those tools manually into an Ant
based build would be very time consuming and make the build complex to
maintain.

For example, in addition the standard build and package aspects of
build, folks expect the build system to:
- support generating the IDE integration files (Idea, eclipse, etc.).
- Run static analysis tools like find bugs
- Run test coverage reports
- Deployment to central servers
- License Checking
- Artifact signing

And most importantly, they want a standard way of doing all that.

Maven also encourages modularity in the architecture by making it easy
build multiple modules/jar files and easily describing the
dependencies between then.  And once you go modular, you will see how
folks start contributing alternative implementations of existing
modules.  Copying a module and it's build setup is easy to do with
maven..  A bit harder with something like ant since it's kinda
monolithic.

Ant was a great tool so if you guys want to stick to your guns that's
cool.  But in this day and age, using a ant based open source project
is kinda like it was when we used make several years back to build
java projects.  Works fine, but dated.



On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Jake Thompson <jake@jakethompson.com> wrote:
> It is quiet around here, I am new, could you please explain why you feel a
> Maven build structure is needed?
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>wrote:
>
>> Anyone out there?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Congrats on the release.  Now that has been completed, I'd like to see
>> > if you guys are willing to revisit the issue of a maven based build.
>> > If yes, I'd be happy to assist making that happen.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Hiram
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> Our first official Apache release has shipped and I'm already looking
>> >> forward to 3.1.0. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> In particular I believe we should look at the following for 3.1.0:
>> >>
>> >> 1) there are a number of issues that we're targeted to 3.1.0 during the
>> >> 3.0.0 cycle. We need to review and address these.
>> >>
>> >> 2) system test. During 3.0.0 we made significant improvements to our
>> test
>> >> environment. However we still lack a large(r) scale system test
>> environment.
>> >> It would be great if we could simulate large scale use over 10s or 100s
>> of
>> >> machines (ensemble + clients). We need some sort of framework for this,
>> and
>> >> of course tests.
>> >>
>> >> 3) operations documentation. In general docs were greatly improved in
>> 3.x
>> >> over 2.x. One area we are still lacking is operations docs for
>> >> design/management of a ZK cluster.
>> >> see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-160
>> >>
>> >> 4) JMX. Documentation needs to be written & the code reviewed/improved.
>> >> Moving to Java6 should (afaik) allow us to take advantage of improved
>> JMX
>> >> spec not available in 5. We should also consider making JMX the default
>> >> rather than optional (ie you get JMX by default when ZK server is
>> started).
>> >> We need to ensure that ops can monitor/admin ZK using JMX.
>> >>
>> >> 5) (begin) multi-tenancy support. A number of users have expressed
>> interest
>> >> in being able to deploy ZK as a service in a cloud. Multi-tenancy
>> support
>> >> would be a huge benefit (quota, qos, namespace partitioning of nodes,
>> >> billing, etc...)
>> >>
>> >> Of course ZooKeeper is open to submissions in that aren't on this list.
>> If
>> >> you have any suggestions please feel free to enter a JIRA or submit a
>> patch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Additionally I'd like to see us move to an 8 week release cycle. I've
>> >> updated the JIRA version list to reflect this. Due to the holiday season
>> >> approaching I've listed 3.1.0 with a ship date of Jan 19th. (see the
>> roadmap
>> >> on the JIRA).
>> >>
>> >> If you have any questions/comments please reply to this email.
>> >>
>> >> Patrick
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Hiram
>> >
>> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>> >
>> > Open Source SOA
>> > http://open.iona.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>



-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com

Mime
View raw message