We can create such a wiki any time - the challenge is converting
existing content. If someone is happy to lose history and do it by
hand, it can be done straight away.
On 06/02/2008, at 9:25 PM, Rahul Thakur wrote:
Some good points emerging from this discussion! :-)
Would it be a nice idea to put following on wiki:
1) State goals/philosophy for C2 in light of lessons learnt from
1.x development - lean, mean, extensible (~add any other here~)
2) Document *all* features/requirements we want to see in C2 on
wiki (even if they are already present in 1.x!).
3) Draw a proposed architecture.
4) Assign items in (1) a priority/weight. Add use-cases to each
item in (1) to determine this.
5) Group the priortised requirements/features into milestones.
6) Start cutting code.
Thoughts?
PS: Codehaus wiki seems to be very slow. Any chance we can have a
space created on Apache wiki? Or, I guess it will have to wait for
TLP vote.
Cheers,
Rahul
Brett Porter wrote:
This looks very exciting, and agree with most of the thread that
follows. I'm just going to reply in summary - most of my thoughts
are actually non-technical :)
Regarding databases: I don't think xml files are the solution
(except for the configuration where it makes a lot more sense :) -
the data needs to be queryable. I think Andy made a good point in
his comment on the roadmap - we need to look at the actual
problems. Here's what I think needs to be improved:
- better centralisation of access. The architecture of Continuum
bleeds JDO decisions all through the code since you access lazy
stuff for the first time in obscure places.
- I think this might be that the model is too complicated (sorry,
my fault) - it assumes complex relationships are handled easily. It
seems to be going ok these days, but I feel it would be hard to
modify.
I haven't looked at Rahul's branch yet, but I think we should
consider a more decoupled database (ie, lookup build results for a
project but keep them separate in the model to avoid the need to
lazyload 90% of the time), and more centralised database logic. I
would consider JPA just because it gives more options in terms of
an implementation. It is quite easy to use from a development
standpoint. But we also need to consider what functionality is
needed up front - I think high on the list needs to be migrations
between versions. Also, We are probably going to need to store more
data in the future, and be able to query it (particularly
historical datapoints).
On the container: I would prefer to move off Plexus simply because
it's a moving target and it's a barrier to entry for new developers.
Now, my more general observations. Firstly, the roadmap doesn't
appear to have any features - these are all technology changes.
Some of that might be cool and a feature in itself, but I think
there needs to be a balance between evolution, features, and
bugfixing. I would also emphasise that features should be creative
new things Continuum can do (for which we've had plenty of ideas),
not just catching up to other CI servers :)
I think the first part of the roadmap is key - separating the
layers out, and basically building Continuum to be lightweight and
distributed from the ground up. I hope that's the focus of the
development. Note this also impacts the database as it should store
much less information on builder machines (it can ship history back
to the main server).
I also think that supporting plugins is a good idea - it has been a
huge bonus in other apps and in Maven itself. I'd like to
investigate using OSGi for this.
But by far the biggest question I have is what happened to 1.2? I
think Continuum needs to set a target to achieve, but get there in
gradual steps that at each stage sees a production release. The
long 1.1 cycle really set Continuum back - a lot of it was changing
features, but there was also a lot of changing technologies :) I
don't think Continuum will survive another year-and-a-half release
cycle. So the start could be to break all the actions out (plexus,
not webwork) into services and add some features, then the next
release could adjust the database model and add some other
features. And as we split these things out we make sure they are
nicely documented and tested.
That's my thoughts :)
Cheers,
Brett
On 30/01/2008, at 9:34 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
Hi
I started a document [1] with my ideas about Continuum 2.
As you can see in this doc, I want to add lot of things in the
next version.
Feel free to comment on it.
[1]
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/CONTINUUM/Continuum+2.0+Design+Discussion
Emmanuel
