incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nolan, Edell" <Edell.No...@iona.com>
Subject RE: M2 Release
Date Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:11:26 GMT
Hi,

Sorry I havn't had much of a chance to look at the patch.
But if we going to release the orb and then once we get a stable version
of CXF we add
In the tools and bindings - that seems good to me.

Edell. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji [mailto:bravi@iona.com] 
Sent: 22 February 2007 13:29
To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org; rickmcg@gmail.com
Subject: RE: M2 Release

Thanks rick... I will look at the patch you provided...

But I am not hearing from anyone else... So should we assume silence
means agreement?

- Balaji

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick McGuire [mailto:rickmcg@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:56 AM
To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: M2 Release

Balaji,

I found a couple of problems with the runtime assembly.

1)  The yoko-rmi-impl jar file was not getting included.
2)  Once I got the dependencies sorted out to get the yoko-rmi-impl jar
file include, the bcel jar file it was dependent upon was not getting
included.
3)  Should we be including license files for things that are not
included in the runtime package?  Most of the included license files
don't apply to that packaging.

I've attached a revised patch that fixes 1) and 2), although my fix for
2 hardcodes the bcel inclusion rather than picking up the dependency
through the rmi-impl dependency.  So I have no objections to a better
fix if someone knows how to do it.

Rick

Mosur Ravi, Balaji wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have attached the patch that contains the fixes needed to release 
> just the core orb part of yoko using profiles.
>
> So, when run with the profile runtime(mvn -Pruntime) it will build 
> only the core, spec & rmi modules. It will leave out the api, bindings

> & tools modules. But by default, everything would be built.
>
> And when building the distribution, again when using profile runtime,
a
> runtime binary assembly will be included. The src assembly remains the

> same.
>
> After the M2 release, we will get rid of the profiles & retain only
the
> runtime binary assembly part.
>
> The reason for doing this is purely to help out Geronimo because cxf
at
> this point is not stable, so we cannot release the complete yoko
because
> parts of it are dependent on CXF.
>
> I am against splitting yoko in to 2 projects because i think the ORB 
> is stable and we could built the tools & WS-bindings around it to keep

> the yoko project moving forward. This is where i see most of the 
> development happen.
>
> Once M2 goes out of the door, we would add bindings & api modules to
the
> runtime assembly, so that we have a clean separation of tools &
runtime.
>
> Do we need to start a vote on this or are we all in agreement?
>
> I will commit the patch once we are in agreement.
>
> Thanks
>
> Balaji
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nolan, Edell [mailto:Edell.Nolan@iona.com]
> Sent: Tue 2/20/2007 12:57 PM
> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org; rickmcg@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: Rules for a release vote.
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks - will try and take a look at the assemblies and profiles.
>
> Edell.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick McGuire [mailto:rickmcg@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 February 2007 17:52
> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rules for a release vote.
>
> Just take a look at all of the release elements of Geronimo.  Geronimo

> includes a large number of spec artifacts, each of which is release 
> separately.  It contains javamail transport/store implementations that

> are released both as an artifact in it's own right and bundled with
the
> javamail api spec jar so there's one unified mail solution.  There's
an
> xbean component, which is also released as it's own entity.  Even the 
> Geronimo server gets released as multiple assemblies, based upon 
> different profiles of components (minimal, tomcat, jetty, etc.).
>
> Rick
>
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:03, Nolan, Edell wrote:
> >  
> >> But surely Yoko should be considered as a whole.
> >> Is it the practice of other Apache projects that they release 
> >> Different modules for different releases.
> >>    
> >
> > Actually, yes.   Several projects do that.   Releasing tuscany is a
> pain.  
> > It's a release of the "buildtools" stuff, a release of the specs, a
> release
> > of sdo, release of the core, etc....    All are separate releases.
> Also,
> > any projects that has multiple languages usually release each
language
>
> > separately.
> >
> >
> > IMO, the stuff Rick is doing to create the "embedded" distribution
is
> a good
> > thing (although I think I would have gone the profile route).
Long
> term, I
> > feel having that is good for the project no matter what the releases

> > look like in the short term.
> >
> >
> > Short term: I'm fundamentally against releasing anything based on 
> > snapshot dependencies whether or not we tag them for reproducibility

> > or not.  (I now pretty much -1 releases that have snapshot
> dependencies since the resulting
> > artifacts will be useless in the maven repositories.)   The CXF
> project has
> > said the stuff is not "stable" and thus I really don't like the idea
> of
> > shipping it.    However, I recognize that Geronimo needs a release
of
> the
> > core stuff (and I assume Harmony would as well) and as community
> building
> > thing, I'd like to provide them with that.   Thus, I would say
> releasing the
> > embedded stuff for them (that doesn't have the snapshot
dependencies)
> > is good for the project and for the community.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not a yoko committer and thus don't have any binding 
> > votes, but that's my opinion.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >  
> >> Edell.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:list@toolazydogs.com]
> >> Sent: 20 February 2007 16:45
> >> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Rules for a release vote.
> >>
> >> On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Mosur Ravi, Balaji wrote:
> >>    
> >>> I think in another discussion, there was a talk about not
releasing
> >>> yoko with just the ORB. (I don't think we reached any
consensus!!!)
> >>>      
> >> I don't recall this.  Could you find a Nabble reference?
> >>
> >> IMO, we should not force users to drag in a WS adapter.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>    
> >
> >  
>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message