openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE RESULT] Packaging with maven
Date Wed, 09 May 2007 22:25:00 GMT

With 5 +1 votes and no -1 or 0 votes, the proposal passes. I've gone  
ahead and committed the patch for OPENJPA-194.

Note that I only changed the artifact names, not the directory names  
in which they reside. We can always start another vote on shuffling  
around the directory names if people deem it a worthwhile endeavor.



On May 6, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:

>
> Poking around the ActiveMQ pom.xml files, I notice that you can  
> have a different artifactId than the module name (i.e., directory)  
> you are in. I hadn't known you could do this.
>
> Currently, our artifacts name are:
>
>   trunk/pom.xml: openjpa
>   trunk/openjpa-all/pom.xml: openjpa-all
>   trunk/openjpa-project/pom.xml: openjpa-project
>
> We could change these to:
>
>   trunk/pom.xml: openjpa-parent
>   trunk/openjpa-all/pom.xml: openjpa
>   trunk/openjpa-project/pom.xml: apache-openjpa
>
> I've tested this out, and it results in the openjpa aggregate jar  
> being named "openjpa-VERSION.jar", the dependency being simply  
> named "openjpa", and the assembly is named "apache-openjpa- 
> VERSION.zip". None of the directories needed to be renamed. I've  
> attached the patch that does this to https://issues.apache.org/jira/ 
> browse/OPENJPA-194
>
> Since this will mess up people who currently have maven  
> dependencies on OpenJPA (i.e., people who depend on "openjpa-all"  
> will now need to depend on "openjpa"), we should probably get this  
> hammered out before leaving incubation. So I've gone ahead and  
> turned the [DISCUSS] into a [VOTE] to see if we should go ahead and  
> do this.
>
> A vote of +1 means we should do the renaming, -1 means we should  
> not, and 0 means "don't care". The vote will remain open until  
> Wednesday May 9th at 23:59 GMT.
>
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Michael Dick wrote:
>
>> Some comments below
>>
>> On 5/4/07, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like reopen the discussion on how to package and name our
>>> artifacts. I think the current setup could be improved, to give a
>>> better experience for users who might not be using maven for
>>> dependency management. It's easy for us to change now before
>>> graduation because once we graduate, people will need to update  
>>> their
>>> dependencies anyway so there are no backward compatibility issues.
>>>
>>> The name of the single jar that has all of the openjpa stuff in it
>>> except for the documentation and examples is currently called  
>>> openjpa-
>>> all. This name is confusing because unless they RTFM, people don't
>>> really know that it's not all the code you need, just all the jpa
>>> code. So I'd like to call this artifact openjpa.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> But we already have a project with that name, and that project builds
>>> the distributions. So I'd rename the current openjpa to openjpa- 
>>> dist.
>>> Its ultimate destination in the Apache mirror structure is under
>>> www.apache.org/dist/openjpa once we graduate, so having dist in the
>>> project name helps understanding that this project builds the
>>> artifacts that go into dist. Separate from the artifacts that are
>>> published via maven.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Finally, the openjpa-all jar includes its subcomponents as
>>> dependencies. I think this is wrong, since you end up with a class
>>> path with openjpa-all.jar as well as openjpa-kernel.jar and all the
>>> others.
>>
>>
>> I would like to change this too. I did a little experimenting and  
>> it looks
>> like the dependencies aren't needed in openjpa-all, but they are  
>> needed for
>> openjpa-project (to populate the lib directory). Moving the  
>> dependencies
>> into openjpa-project should be safe.
>>
>> We're also going to need to change the deploy logic to strip out the
>> -project suffix from the zip files. We've talked about it before  
>> when I was
>> releasing 0.9.7 (and before that when Marc was working on 0.9.6),  
>> but I
>> haven't had time to look into it. It should be fairly easy to make  
>> the
>> change.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ 
>>> products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -Michael Dick
>


Mime
View raw message