On Nov 23, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Nov 23, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Nov 23, 2005, at 1:58 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I've investigated this a little bit and think it might be too big
a lurch in a new direction for 1.0. Here are a few of the things
that would have to change or appear to be problems:
1. constructing the configId from groupId + artifactId + version +
type. This is pretty easy.
2. finding stuff in a repo and/or config store from the configId.
This is fairly easy
3. Constructing the ObjectNames that include the configId in
J2EEApplication and/or J2EEModule. This requires quoting the
configId which is a big pain and is apt to cause difficulties
everywhere.
4. We have been using URI for the configIds internally. I think if
we use this new format this should change. The : character appears
to have a specific meaning in URIs and it is decidedly different
from what we are meaning by it. We could perhaps introduce a
scheme and write
configid:groupId:artifactId:version:type. I could not tell from a
bit of research on URIs whether this is consistent with their
intended semantics. Does it make sense to have URIs of this form?
Should we just change our configId type to something else?
At this point I think we need more discussion before we proceed
along this route. I have some of it implemented.... please speak
up.
My opinion, is we don't make incompatible changes between major
releases, so if we decide not to do this now, it will be harder to
do it later.
Anyway, I see your point, so lets talk about what changes you want
to implement pre-1.0?
If you are changing the configuration ids, I'd like to make sure the
format is something we can easily parse into groupId, artifactId and
version. For example, we could go with:
org.apache.geronimo/j2ee-server/1.0
Should we change our dependency URIs to the same format? I'm
inclined to think we should. I would prefer to include the type
(car|jar) for completeness and to distinguish dependencies from
configIds.
I know it will make the files much longer, but I'd prefer we drop or
deprecate support for the single line dependency declaration, which
means we require the full format:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo</groupId>
<artifactId>kernel</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
Look in the configs/assemblies builds. All dependency elements are
generated by the plugins, and are in this format.
So I think this format proposal takes care of (3) and (4) and I
already implemented (1) and (2) although with the : separator. I'm
not sure if this format might cause confusion anywhere between a
resolvable path URI and this more abstract configId format.
It is possible. Who will actually see it? If it is just us geronimo
programmers, we should document it. If it is users, I think we should
think about mitigating the impact.
I'm mostly wondering about jsr-77 object names. But, we already have
both meaningless configId uris and, in ear module names, path uris for
relative position in the ear. So I'm not sure this would introduce any
more confusion.
Are there any other changes of note?
Using the plugins rather than tons of jelly is a big change, but I'm
not sure what else might be a change "of note". Also for a while now
the plugin-based build has been extracting dependency info from
project.xml rather than requiring you to duplicate it.
Cool. I was really asking about changes to the internal stuff or to
the plans themselves.
Well, I'd recommend if we decide to change to this uri format that the
Repository implementations accept them rather than the current path
based uris they are accepting.
ConfigIds in plans should all change. Plans we supply are all (in
configs build) using (generated) dependencies and imports of the long
format already. IMO you should be specifiying all the parents using
import tags anyway in the long format (this is done in configs build as
well (as soon as I commit the next cleanup :-)).
I'm starting to think this is doable by 1.0. It would be nice to hear
other opinions...
thanks
david jencks
-dain
