openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Packaging with maven
Date Mon, 07 May 2007 16:03:30 GMT
+1

What would the impact be if we renamed openjpa-all to openjpa?

We could change our checkout instructions to read
svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openjpa/trunkopenjpa-parent
and then the directories match the artifactId's in pom.xml.

The only reason I think this is worth doing is to avoid confusion for new
developers down the road. It's just one more thing that we have to remember
and explain. Maybe there's an impact to changing the directory name that I
missed though.

-Mike

On 5/6/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message