incubator-empire-db-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Francis De Brabandere <franci...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ready for release?
Date Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:24:28 GMT
I used the jetty plugin to test the web apps (mvn jetty:run), I have
never used WTP (and its m2e integration) before, maybe you should have
a look at some other web projects that use maven. I know wicket has a
Start.java that starts an embedded jetty.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Rainer Döbele<doebele@esteam.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I found a litte problem:
> For some reason the WTP-Eclipse plugin was commented out on the two struts2 web example
projects (empire-db-example-struts2 + empire-db-example-struts2-cxf).
> I have commented them in and run mvn eclipse:eclipse.
> For some reason the litte earth symbol that is usually on the top left of the project
icon for WTP Projects is not there, but I could choose "debug on server".
> Then I found, that I got a "Class not found" error.
> So I checked the Java EE Module dependencies and found that the dependencies were not
selected.
> I selected them but still got the error because for some reason it does not see to load
the empire-db-struts2 classes.
>
> My questions:
> 1. Has anyone managed to run the two web samples projects?
> 2. What do we need to change that the run off the shelf?
> 3. Does anyone know whether there is a Maven plugin that's sets up the project for the
use with the tomcat sysdeo Eclipse plugin?
>
> @Francis: About the wiki:
> At the moment we have a rather static website.
> I don't know whether or how to set up a wiki.
> Sorry.
>
>
>
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> Re: ready for release?
>>
>> Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme
>> we also need some release task list and I need to look into releasing
>> using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging
>> repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it.
>>
>> Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that
>> planned for after incubation?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De
>> Brabandere<francisdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator
>> > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
>> >
>> > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's
>> not
>> > that I'm against hiding the logging either
>> >
>> > Francis
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<doebele@esteam.de>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi Francis,
>> >>
>> >> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
>> >> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for
>> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at
>> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
>> >> But it's a personal opinion.
>> >> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
>> >>
>> >> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
>> >> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
>> >>
>> >> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains
>> how to build with Maven.
>> >> We could adapt this for our release.
>> >>
>> >> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Rainer
>> >>
>> >> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >>> Re: logging of unit tests
>> >>>
>> >>> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
>> error
>> >>> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
>> >>>
>> >>> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a
>> file
>> >>> in the target folder instead of console?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<doebele@esteam.de>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi Francis,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > thanks a lot.
>> >>> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
>> >>> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
>> logical.
>> >>> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
>> properties
>> >>> file.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting
>> the
>> >>> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
>> >>> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
>> >>> benefit in having the log output there.
>> >>> > What do you think?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Regards
>> >>> > Rainer
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
>> >>> >> Re: revive the release process
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default
>> value
>> >>> is
>> >>> >> provided these are no real exceptions.
>> >>> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error
>> level
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j
>> to
>> >>> >> hide the traces
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> What do you think?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
>> >>> >> Brabandere<francisdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Hi Rainer,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
>> Döbele<doebele@esteam.de>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list
>> recently, I
>> >>> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5
in
>> order
>> >>> to
>> >>> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I
can tell
>> all
>> >>> >> required legal documents are there.
>> >>> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
>> >>> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output -
including
>> some
>> >>> >> exceptions.
>> >>> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly
- but are
>> >>> >> confusing.
>> >>> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when
running
>> the
>> >>> >> unit tests?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
>> >>> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put
it up for
>> >>> voting?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Regards
>> >>> >> >> Rainer
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > --
>> >>> >> > http://www.somatik.be
>> >>> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole
house.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> http://www.somatik.be
>> >>> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> http://www.somatik.be
>> >>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://www.somatik.be
>> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.somatik.be
>> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
>



-- 
http://www.somatik.be
Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.

Mime
View raw message