Hi Felipe, Warning: Please note that I'm really grateful for all your suggestions. The only reason I'm arguing some of them is to play the Devil's advocate and see the issue from the different angles. The idea being that in the end, we're sure about what we're doing.
See below > -----Original Message----- > From: Felipe Leme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: mardi 26 octobre 2004 06:56 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: RE: [proposal] Using Cargo? > > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 04:23, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > 2.Release a temporary 1.7 version (like Milestone 1) > > > > I'd prefer a 1.7 final. This is the strategy that we've usually followed > in > > Cactus and thanks to our strong test suite we've never had any major > issue. > > We can always follow it by a 1.7.1 bug fix release if need be. > > The problem, im my opinion, is that we should have a 1.6.2 that fixes a > lot of the recent issues (like the JDK 1.5 related ones), but it's too > late now (as we should have forked before) Why is it too late? We have a 1.6 branch. We can use it if we want. It's only a matter of merging HEAD on the 1.6 branch. > > > That said, I'm also ok with a 1.7-beta/rc1 if you feel strongly about it > > (we've had one in the past too). > > Yes, I think we need some intermediate release. Works for me. Maybe you can cast a vote so that we get the feedback from all cactus committers? > > > Now, who wants to be the release manager? :-) It's a relatively involved > > process but I could it with someone else the first time if need be. Or I > > could do it myself if nobody volunteers. > > I'd like to volunteer, but I'm afraid I won't have time for it in this > upcoming week. Cool. We can do it next week if that's ok with you. Anyway you mentioned that you still had to apply a few patches. Alternatively I can do it around end of week (Thursday/Friday) if need be (or following week). Let me know what you prefer. > > > Yeah, I remember we discussed this with Chris some time back but we > never > > really saw the need to have this third module. What do you think would > be > > the benefit? Is there a benefit in not having the Maven plugin depend on > the > > Ant plugin? > > I see 3 reasons: > > 1.Sometimes looks like the Maven plugin and Ant tasks are not the same, > i.e., it's hard to realize how the plugin is passing arguments to the > task (I can't remember an example, but it happened at least twice with > me) They're both using exactly the same code (the Maven plugin is using directly the Ant task). I'm not sure how introducing a third module makes it more "understandable" :-) > 2.Isn't there a recommendation to remove Ant (and even Jelly) > dependencies on maven plugins? If we move the logic to Cargo, it would > be simpler to move the plugin logic to POJOS and then just use Jelly to > wrap the taglib That's not the way I understand it. There's a trend in maven2 to write plugins in pure Java. We're lucky because that's exactly what we have in Catcus: A pure Java implementation in the Ant Integration (soon to be replace by Cargo). So I don't see this as an issue. Of course, there's still all the Ant users that we must not forget, so we'll also need to keep the Ant tasks. I personally don't see an issue in having the Maven plugin depend on a jar that contains Ant tasks that it isn't using. > 3.When I have to debug/analyze the plugin, I think it's harder to > understand what goes on inside the ant tasks than it would be in a POJO. Fine. This point will be moot once we move to Cargo I think. Anyway we're jumping ahead of time here... We still have 2 refactorings to perform before we reach this stage... that should leave us enough time to discuss it once we get closer to the implementation ;-) > > > How do we distribute that third module? As yet another jar? In > > that case it's more cumbersome for end users which I'd rather not (it's > not > > a problem for Maven users but it is for Ant users). > > Wouldn't we be distributing Cargo separated anyway? Yes > Actually, I haven't > even thought about this module being an independent jar; my original > idea was just a logical layer packaged on Cactus' jar. Ok, so you mean a separate Maven build that generates a jar but then we would add it back to the Ant jar? Adding a build is complex for us in term of creation and maintenance (we're not using Maven yet). However, if/when we move to Maven, then I'm all for it. Thanks -Vincent --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
