incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Shaw <wfs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Moving CQL drivers
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:40:12 GMT
I worry that if the issue management is moved from the main JIRA for C*
sponsored drivers there will be synergy and awareness lost between client
and server. Did the Hector and Pelops folks see it as a good thing to have
their own?

As a small convenience to the Maven inclined among us, perhaps it would be
useful and non threatening to maintain the directory structure for the JDBC
driver in default Maven directory structure format? This would be
exceedingly helpful for simple source control checkout of the code base for
those that would like to add their own POM to build and test, and not effect
a default ANT build in any way. Yes I know it is possible to remap all the
various directory resources but if it start out using the Maven defaults
both camps can easily interoperate without a lot of special casing as it
should not really matter to an ANT build design.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 September 2011 10:12, Eric Evans <eevans@acunu.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Stephen Connolly
> > <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6 September 2011 18:34, Vivek Mishra <vivek.mishra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Sounds good moving to github.
> >>> 1 quick question, what about JIRAs already raised w.r.t drivers? Not
> sure but is it possible to integrate these new projects with current JIRA
> flow?
> >>>
> >>> Planning to make these new projects based on maven build process?(As
> that might be helpful in case of any quick release required for any sub
> module).
> >>
> >> Ha!
> >>
> >> I would be genuinely surprised if that were to happen.
> >>
> >> I think there is a greater chance of seeing C* itself being built with
> >> maven than the drivers...
> >
> > Really?  I see the exact opposite, (and it's probably no secret how I
> > feel about Maven).
> >
>
> Hmmm, well here's my view, the only ones where Maven makes sense are
> the JVM based drivers. Most of the JVM based ones can be simplified
> down to the JDBC driver... and as Eric is the driver of the JDBC
> driver and Eric's opinions on Maven are well known...
>
> >> P.S.
> >> I will wait to be asked for my opinion on how this could be addresses
> >> using Maven as a build tool.
> >
> > Is that, "Through the use of copious amounts of XML markup, storage,
> > and network bandwidth?". :)
> >
>
> Meh, the XML would be an order of magnitude less than the current ANT
> build script.
>
> Storage... well it depends which storage you are talking about, it
> would be a choice of storage in .svn or storage in ~/.m2
>
> Network bandwidth... only if people follow poor -SNAPSHOT strategies
> and are constantly deploying -SNAPSHOTs to the remote repo....
>
> > Sorry, I couldn't resist.
>
> Neither could I ;-)
>
> >
> >> The stated preference of the C*
> >> developers is to use ANT. I am happy that Maven ANT Tasks is being
> >> used over IVY, and happy that the artifacts are being pushed to
> >> central, after that it doesn't matter what the build tool used is, as
> >> long as the published poms are good (and last time I fine tuned them
> >> they were) and as long as stuff gets into central, I am fine.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eric Evans
> > Acunu | http://www.acunu.com | @acunu
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message