myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Use maven-shade-plugin to prevent duplicate code
Date Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:15:15 GMT
Hi

No, I understand well, but maybe we are talking about many possible
enhancements at the same time.

I know how shade plugin works, after all, I did the necessary changes to use
it on implee6. That's the reason why I know well the problems involved. I
tried
to use it in myfaces-test but the conclusion was myfaces builder plugin
unpack
goal is better in that specific context. I also tried to do the same with
shared,
but again I found all previous problems. The code you have on the branch is
similar to the attempt I did, but I investigated much more about it.

I'll do a brief resume of the discussion. In that way we'll be sure we are
taking
of the same thing.

Q: What do we want to do?

The central point is how to refactor or change the way shared works, so we
don't
need to to a full build each time a change is done.

Q: Which are the problems when using maven shade plugin?

1. Source jar file is not updated, so IDEs will have problems with it.
2. Maven shade plugin does not play well with bundle plugin.
3. Some shared_impl classes are public, so we can't change its package name.
    without break backwards compatibility.

Q: Could shared be a submodule on myfaces core project instead a separate
project?

Only if we can release shared in a independent way. In my opinion it is
better let it
as is.

Q: Mojarra will provide an artifact with api and impl bundle together, could
we do the same?

Yes, but for that artifact we need to generate a new manifest.mf file. By
problem 2, the only option
is use unpack goal. Configure that one will be tricky. I'll create a
submodule for this one.

Q: So, what alternative do we have at this point?

1. Keep public shared classes with package shared_impl. Maybe the only one
is DelegateServlet.
2. Refactor impl module to use "org.apache.myfaces.shared" instead
"org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl".
3. Use shade plugin and ignore the problem 2 (we can do it since those
packages will not be exported).
4. Check manifest.mf and source jar to see if everything is ok.
5. Leave shared project as is. We don't need to do any changes there.

That's what I'm thinking. Does that sounds good? Do you see any incongruence
or
misunderstanding? It that so, just let me know.

Suggestions are welcome.

regards,

Leonardo Uribe

2010/11/8 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>

> Hi
>
> Leo, you are getting this all wrong. Please take a look at the
> shade-branch, which I created, and then we can continue this
> discussion.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob
>
> 2010/11/8 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>:
> > Hi
> >
> > 2010/11/8 Gerhard <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> hi,
> >> i didn't talk about copying the code to the impl. module. it would be a
> >> normal module (similar to the shared module) which gets shadded into the
> >> impl. module.
> >> actually both approaches are very similar. so you have the same
> advantages
> >> (compared to the shared module) and it's easier to handle during the
> >> development process.
> >
> > Ok, but if that so, the advantage of the current configuration is we can
> > release
> > shared code without release myfaces core. If we put shared code as a
> > submodule
> > of myfaces core and we need to release tomahawk or orchestra or other
> > project
> > that uses shared code we'll need to release core first.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Leonardo Uribe
> >
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >> http://www.irian.at
> >>
> >> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >> Courses in English and German
> >>
> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2010/11/8 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> 2010/11/8 Gerhard <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> again - i agree with jakob!
> >>>> such an >additional< all-in-one dist won't change the situation
for
> osgi
> >>>> users. (for now) they just have to stick with the current jar files.
> >>>> @shared:
> >>>> the classes of the shared module would be in the impl. module, if we
> >>>> don’t (have to) share them with other myfaces sub-projects.
> >>>
> >>> The advantage of have shared in a separate module is we ensure all
> shared
> >>> code only depends
> >>> of jsf api. If we put that code inside myfaces impl, we have the risk
> of
> >>> mix code and then
> >>> well see ClassNotFoundException or things like that when libraries like
> >>> tomahawk or
> >>> in the future portlet bridge are used with mojarra.
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> Leonardo Uribe
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> regards,
> >>>> gerhard
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.irian.at
> >>>>
> >>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >>>> Courses in English and German
> >>>>
> >>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2010/11/8 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMHO shared code ist just as private as myfaces-impl code. Not more,
> >>>>> not less.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adding the all-in-one-jar is not a change, but an improvement. It
is
> >>>>> just an additional (non-OSGi-ready) distribution form of MyFaces
code
> >>>>> and thus does not affect the problems we're having with
> myfaces-shared
> >>>>> and OSGi.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Jakob
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2010/11/8 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>:
> >>>>> > Hi
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 2010/11/8 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Hi,
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Last week I created a branch (see [1]) to test the shade
module
> >>>>> >> integration of shared and also implee6 for MyFaces core.
> >>>>> >> Coincidentally, Leonardo committed a similar solution to
MyFaces
> >>>>> >> core
> >>>>> >> trunk, however only for the implee6 integration.
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> The branch at [1] uses the shade plugin to include shared
and
> >>>>> >> implee6.
> >>>>> >> For shared it uses a dependency to myfaces-shared-core
(NOT
> >>>>> >> shared-impl), which will then be shaded to org.apache.myfaces.*
> >>>>> >> (without the shared-package) - however this is only a prototype.
> To
> >>>>> >> make this work I had to rename all imports in myfaces-impl
from
> >>>>> >> "shared_impl" to "shared". Everything works pretty well
expect for
> >>>>> >> the
> >>>>> >> OSGi-issues mentioned by Leonardo.
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Using this branch you are able to work on MyFaces shared
classes
> in
> >>>>> >> the context of MyFaces core and not having to do a whole
maven
> build
> >>>>> >> when testing it, because your IDE uses shared directly
as a
> >>>>> >> dependency. Thus it really is an improvement to what we
have now
> and
> >>>>> >> we should try to fix the OSGi issues in some way to really
make
> this
> >>>>> >> work. I already did some work in this direction and I think
that a
> >>>>> >> ResourceTransformer implementation for shade that creates
the
> >>>>> >> Manifest
> >>>>> >> file for OSGi is the way to go, but we certainly have to
discuss
> >>>>> >> this
> >>>>> >> (maybe also with the bundle-plugin team). WDYT Leo?
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Well, before try to do something like that (a ResourceTransformer
> >>>>> > implementation)
> >>>>> > it is good to ask if it is really necessary to do that. On
a
> previous
> >>>>> > mail I
> >>>>> > said that
> >>>>> > "shared" code should be private, so there should not be used
for
> >>>>> > users
> >>>>> > outside
> >>>>> > myfaces impl. There are exceptions (DelegateServlet), so we
have to
> >>>>> > identify
> >>>>> > first
> >>>>> > which code could not be relocated. The effect on maven bundle
> plugin
> >>>>> > is
> >>>>> > shared packages are excluded from Export-Package header, but
as
> long
> >>>>> > as
> >>>>> > users
> >>>>> > don't have code importing shared_impl package it is ok to ignore
> this
> >>>>> > side
> >>>>> > effect.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> However, please take a look at the branch at [1] and try
to use it
> >>>>> >> in
> >>>>> >> your IDE - I think it's really great! (... and furthermore
I think
> >>>>> >> it's much easier to understand for every myfaces-developer).
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> I also totally agree with Gerhard that we should provide
this
> >>>>> >> all-in-one jar, even if it may cause problems in OSGi,
because our
> >>>>> >> OSGi users will most certainly know that. It's really easy
to do
> >>>>> >> this
> >>>>> >> using the shade plugin and it provides a very convenient
way for
> >>>>> >> developers to use MyFaces (especially when they're not
using
> maven).
> >>>>> >> As Gerhard mentioned, Mojarra will do the same and furthermore
> other
> >>>>> >> projects like e.g. Weld also provide this all-in-one solution
(-->
> >>>>> >> weld-servlet).
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I disagree. Our first priority should be myfaces usage in different
> >>>>> > environments,
> >>>>> > and then enhance IDE support. Only if the two previous objections
> can
> >>>>> > be
> >>>>> > solved,
> >>>>> > the change can be made.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > regards,
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Leonardo Uribe
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Regards,
> >>>>> >> Jakob
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> [1]
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/branches/2_0_3_snapshot_shade_test/
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> 2010/11/8 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>:
> >>>>> >> > Hi
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > 2010/11/8 Gerhard <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> hi,
> >>>>> >> >> @ide-support:
> >>>>> >> >> since you get an additional all-in-one sources
jar file, it
> >>>>> >> >> should
> >>>>> >> >> work.
> >>>>> >> >> i've created external codi examples which use
the all-in-one
> jar
> >>>>> >> >> of
> >>>>> >> >> codi
> >>>>> >> >> and the ide support works perfectly.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > Yes, that's true (I checked that code) but in shared
you need to
> >>>>> >> > change
> >>>>> >> > the
> >>>>> >> > package name to org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > Really that package renaming is questionable. Why?
It exists
> since
> >>>>> >> > 1.1.x
> >>>>> >> > but
> >>>>> >> > I don't know why this is necessary. In theory, the
code inside
> >>>>> >> > shared
> >>>>> >> > should
> >>>>> >> > be "private", but the truth is we have one class that
could be
> >>>>> >> > consumed
> >>>>> >> > by
> >>>>> >> > users:
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >
> org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.webapp.webxml.DelegatedFacesServlet.
> >>>>> >> > That is the main reason why I moved the code proposed
on
> >>>>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2944
to
> myfaces-impl
> >>>>> >> > package.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> @osgi:
> >>>>> >> >> if there are restrictions, we should improve the
shade plugin.
> >>>>> >> >> (for now: osgi users just can't use this optional
all-in-one
> jar
> >>>>> >> >> file -
> >>>>> >> >> if
> >>>>> >> >> we document it, it shouldn't be a problem.)
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > There is a discussion of this issue here:
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-1184
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > It was reported here too:
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSHADE-51
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > The issue in maven is here:
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2258
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > Unfortunately, the only hack I can see to make this
work
> correctly
> >>>>> >> > is
> >>>>> >> > create
> >>>>> >> > a plugin with a maven lifecycle extension, and do
that is very
> >>>>> >> > nasty,
> >>>>> >> > because we need to create a plugin just to do that.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> @use-case:
> >>>>> >> >> we should really get rid of the shared module.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > I agree. First we need a more explicit plan to do
it.
> Suggestions
> >>>>> >> > are
> >>>>> >> > welcome.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > regards,
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > Leonardo Uribe
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> regards,
> >>>>> >> >> gerhard
> >>>>> >> >> http://www.irian.at
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >>>>> >> >> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >>>>> >> >> Courses in English and German
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> 2010/11/8 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>
> >>>>> >> >>>
> >>>>> >> >>> Hi
> >>>>> >> >>>
> >>>>> >> >>> Unfortunately, maven-shade-plugin has some
unwanted side
> >>>>> >> >>> effects.
> >>>>> >> >>>
> >>>>> >> >>> - The source jar file is not updated too,
so if we "shade"
> >>>>> >> >>> shared, the
> >>>>> >> >>> sources are not updated. In theory, the source
jar is used by
> >>>>> >> >>> IDEs
> >>>>> >> >>> like
> >>>>> >> >>> Eclipse or Netbeans to show the source file
of a .class.
> >>>>> >> >>> - It does not play well with osgi bundle plugin
(the one that
> >>>>> >> >>> create
> >>>>> >> >>> manifest.mf). The problem is the manifest
is generated before
> >>>>> >> >>> "shade",
> >>>>> >> >>> and
> >>>>> >> >>> we need the later. Really that one is a problem
related to
> maven
> >>>>> >> >>> itself.
> >>>>> >> >>>
> >>>>> >> >>> The only valid use case I found where maven-shade-plugin
fits
> >>>>> >> >>> well is
> >>>>> >> >>> with implee6 module, but anyway it was required
to do some
> hacks
> >>>>> >> >>> to
> >>>>> >> >>> make
> >>>>> >> >>> bundle plugin works well.
> >>>>> >> >>>
> >>>>> >> >>> regards,
> >>>>> >> >>>
> >>>>> >> >>> Leonardo Uribe
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> --
> >>>>> >> Jakob Korherr
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
> >>>>> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
> >>>>> >> work: http://www.irian.at
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Jakob Korherr
> >>>>>
> >>>>> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
> >>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
> >>>>> work: http://www.irian.at
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jakob Korherr
>
> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
> work: http://www.irian.at
>

Mime
View raw message