river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com>
Subject Re: Getting Started
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:57:35 GMT

So, to be clear, I’m not talking about “Mavenizing” River.  I’m not saying that’s
a bad idea (or gradle-izing, whatever).  But let’s face it - we’ve been talking about
it for five years with no agreement and no progress.

What we have is a build process for the River libraries in the JTSK that works (although it
needs to get updated for JDK 8) but confuses the heck out of everyone.  I think we all agree
that something ought to be done, but we it’ll be a big job.  The problem is, we keep allowing
that argument to block any progress on our “getting started” experience.

I have always been of the viewpoint that the vast majority of potential users of River really
do not need to be concerned with compiling River.  They just need the jars, and they need
to know how to use them.

So what I’m suggesting here, is a set of examples that show people how to use River to get
the services up-and-running in a fresh build tool.  Which we all know does not actually require
anyone to build River, since the artifacts are in Central.  If those users become interested
in hacking on the River source, then they’re welcome to either learn how the JTSK build
works, or fix it - that’s great.  But that’s not what I’m talking about with these examples.

I’m pointing this out in the hope that we avoid falling into another round of arguments
over “modularizing” or “Mavenizing” River.


Greg Trasuk

On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg,
> Here is a start to a gradle-ized version of River done 3 years ago http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/river/jtsk/skunk/modules/,
could easily beused to create examples as well.
> And here is the maven-ized version: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/river/jtsk/skunk/qa_refactor/trunk/modularize/
> Dennis
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 521PM, Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dennis:
>> I’m slightly allergic to hard-and-fast conventions.  For example, the service browser
example really doesn’t fit those conventions.  Also, I’m reticent to suggest repackaging
the infrastructure services (reggie, outrigger, mahalo, etc) at this time (meaning that I
personally have no plans to do it). Having said that, I’m basically with you.  Matter of
fact if you have a look at the River-Container examples over at https://github.com/trasukg/river-container-examples
you’ll see that’s pretty much the same style.  The minor difference is that I’ve used
‘hello-impl’ rather than ‘hello-service’, and there’s also a ‘hello-module’
that is the packaged artifact for the container.
>> I believe the critical thing is to make sure that the client api is separate, so
that the client doesn’t accidentally know anything about the implementation.  All else is
implementation details, though I agree that we should provide a good example.
>> As far as Maven/Gradle, it happens that I know Maven and not Gradle.  All I am trying
to do is provide some easier example than just diving into the JTSK source.  If someone were
to contribute a Gradle-based example, that’s all-the-better for user choice.  But I don’t
think we should go around telling people what build tool to use.
>> Cheers,
>> Greg Trasuk
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>> I'd like to suggest that River follow the conventions that align with whats recommended
over in Rio (http://www.rio-project.org/conventions.html). This has been pretty successful
using both Maven and Gradle (at this time I would go with Gradle btw).
>>> HTH
>>> Regards
>>> Dennis
>>>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 1016PM, Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com> wrote:
>>>> I started working on making new demos and “getting started” stuff back
before the holidays.  Here’s my thinking…
>>>> As Patricia alludes to, it really shouldn’t be necessary to build the River
distribution in order to try out some samples and get started.  After all, the artifacts are
published on Maven Central, so they can simply be referenced in a Maven build (or Gradle,
Ivy, Etc).
>>>> Towards that end, I started building a new Mavenized ‘examples’ project,
which can be checked-out from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/river/river-examples/river-examples/trunk.
>>>> In that project, there are currently modules for the service browser jars
and a ‘home’ folder for the compiled and packaged examples. (might be best to download
it and do a ‘mvn install site’).  There’s also documentation for the examples under
the main project (look at  <project-home>/target/site/index.html - this should be familiar
to Maven users).  The documentation currently includes how to build and run the service browser
(although I think right now it’s incomplete on how the configuration works - haven’t looked
at it since Dec 15).
>>>> Right now, the project has a dependency on the new ‘river-rt-tools’ modules
that I talked about back in December as well.  So in order to run the examples, you currently
need to checkout 'https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/river/river-rt-tools/trunk' and do a ‘mvn
install’ on it, which will install the runtime tool artifacts (start.jar) in your local
Maven cache.  In the end, those artifacts would also be released and published on Maven Central,
so you eventually wouldn’t need to build the runtime tools separately.
>>>> My plan is to add modules to the river-examples project for a 'hello-service’
and ‘hello-client’, as well as a config for the infrastructure services (Reggie, etc).
 So eventually, the “getting started” instructions become “have a look at ‘river-examples’”,
and we’d remove the (very confusing, if you ask me) ‘examples’ folder from the JTSK
distribution.  As a bonus, we can isolate new users from the convoluted build system in River.
>>>> If this seems like a reasonable path forward for our “getting started”
experience, perhaps you’d like to work on bringing over some of the examples from the JTSK
to the ‘river-examples’ project. That’s probably also a good way to re-familiarize yourself
with Jini.  I probably won’t have any cycles to work on it seriously for the next couple
weeks, but could cheerfully make suggestions.
>>>> You should be able to check-out these two Maven project in the IDE of your
choice.  I was using NetBeans, but AFAIK, Eclipse should be able to use the Maven build directly.
 I just haven’t tried it.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Greg Trasuk.
>>>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> I have completed buying a new home, moving into it, and selling the old
one, followed by Christmas in England and recovery from the cold I caught there. That means
I'm ready to get much more active in River.
>>>>> Last year, we got some feedback suggesting that better support for new
users might remove a barrier to community building. My main agenda is community building,
so I want to work on that. I am going to be a very naive potential user, so stand by for basic
>>>>> I began by downloading the binary version, since in this mode I am not
interested in being a River developer. However, when I looked at the "Getting Started" page,
river.apache.org/user-guide-basic-river-services.html, it says:
>>>>> "The instructions assume that you're building from source as checked
out from the SVN trunk. Currently this is necessary because the code snippets below use methods
and classes which, at time of writing, haven't made it into the latest binary release yet.
Having said that, the code you will need in the binary release isn't to far removed from what
you'll see below, so you can progress with the binary release if you want to and are happy
odifying the code."
>>>>> According to the page info, the "time of writing" was no later than November
23, 2013. Do I still need to do a River build before I can run the example? If so, why and
what can I do to fix that?
>>>>> I have no idea whether or not I would be happy "odifying" code - maybe
>>>>> What is the best procedure for editing the "Getting Started" page? I
want to make sure that any changes I make really are improvements, so I would like PMC review
as I go along.
>>>>> Patricia

View raw message