river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Barnaby <Frank.Barn...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: a potential "AR1" release
Date Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:49:20 GMT
Please ignore the second question regarding the serviceui.jar since
it's been discussed over the past couple days...


Frank


On Aug 28, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:

>
> I've done a test build with the serviceui sources moved into the jtsk
> source tree (namespaces unchanged) and have found no obvious problems.
>
> This does raise the question of whether we need to add a jar'ing  
> target
> for serviceui.
>
> One other question comes to mind...  How should we handle the logstore
> portion of the outrigger build?  Should we leave it as is, disable it
> in the build, or remove the sources completely?  If we leave it as is,
> we would need to consider including the prebuilt-outrigger- 
> logstore.jar
> in the source distribution, as Phil suggested, to allow builds without
> the need for a Jini installation.  Disabling the logstore jar'ing
> target, on the other hand, removes the dependency on the Jini binary
> installation but leaves the logstore sources in a unaltered state.
> In all cases, logstore cannot be used without pro.zip (the PSEpro
> runtime library), but persistence is still attainable through the use
> of the snaplogstore implementation.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Hurley wrote:
>
>> Not sure if these are the first/best questions to start with,
>> but I think having a better understanding of how serviceui
>> and the starterkit will fit/be bundled together would help.
>>
>> Since I view them as coming together (at least initially) as
>> part of the River project (not staying as separate entities)...
>> I wonder what it would take to move the serviceui sources
>> under the jtsk root.  As an opening position (to get the
>> discussion started)... let's say that we bundle together
>> serviceui and starter kit into the same release bundle and
>> we go with the current starter kit structure.
>>
>> Thoughts?  Issues?  Alternatives?
>>
>> thanks -Jim
>>
>>
>>> * Should we go with the current starter kit release bundle  
>>> structure?
>>>
>>> * Bundle starterkit and serviceui in the release bundle?
>>>    (assuming yes)  How should serviceui fit in?
>>
>


Mime
View raw message