I have thought about splitting the plugin - the only issue i could see is having to add the other plugin to projects to run them under servicemix or to deploy them. Though splitting would still require use of profiles to have a core/tooling and everything else profile? Unless we create two tooling directories?
Since we have talked about not producing too much change pre-3.0, I would push for profiles and then lets try and see when Maven can fix the issue :) P On 8/1/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have just seen, thx to a user on the mailing list, that the maven plugin depends on servicemix-core. To the mentioned steps won't even work when building from a clean computer. Afaik, currently, you will need to build servicemix-core and its dependencies one by one, to be allow to build the maven plugin, and then the components. Maybe we could use maven profiles to ease that, but I really hope the bug http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1911 will be fixed in 2.0.5 asap. Restructuring would help a bit, in that it would allow to build the core container and its dependencies in one run. The other way would be to split to jbi plugin into two different plugins, one that would contain the maven packaging, and one that would contain the ant tasks and other goals, like jbi:servicemix. Any opinion on what to do ? On 7/28/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not really. > There is a bug in maven which cause maven plugins with extension to not > being > used when build in the current build. Not sure I'm very clear, here. > The problem happen when you build from a clean machine. > You can not do > mvn install > from the root and expect everything to work. > This works for simple maven plugins, but not for plugins using > "extensions" :( > You need to do > mvn -N install > cd tooling > mvn install > cd .. > mvn install > > At least, it is my understanding on how maven currently works. > > > On 7/28/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > One note on the plugin - with the re-org the build order would succeed > > if > > you built core first - the tooling - then everything else since nothing > > in > > core requires the plugin > > > > P > > > > On 7/28/06, Guillaume Nodet < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 7/28/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I put together a basic plan (with some help from Guillaume), here > > > > > > > > http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/Source+Structure > > > > > > > > The purpose of the new structure it two allow cleaner separation > > > between: > > > > > > > > 1/ The JBI Container > > > > 2/ Deployables such as shared libraries/BC's/SE's > > > > 3/ Platform specific packaging projects > > > > 4/ Archetypes > > > > 5/ Tooling > > > > 6/ Sampels > > > > > > > > By categorizing the source it should become easier to read and > > therefore > > > > identifying what SE/BC's/SL's are available should become more > > > > obvious, as > > > > well as cleanly showing what is required for core Container > > > functionality. > > > > > > > > There are a couple of ommissions - first rather than one assembly > > > > (currently > > > > apache-servicemix project) I would like to add a root directories > > called > > > > assemblies and then create a few packaging (as previously mentioned) > > > > > > > > ie. > > > > > > > > assemblies > > > > \ core-only > > > > \ core-and-components > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > +1 to this reorg > > > The question is wether we will release everything at the same time or > > not. > > > Currently, the problem is that we need to build the maven plugin in a > > > first > > > step, > > > else maven will not pick it while building the whole source tree. > > > We could avoid that if we could release the plugin, then use it to > > build > > > the > > > source tree > > > (as done in Geronimo). But the maven plugin needs the core container > > > before > > > :( > > > > > > The other is the servicemix-components package, there are two ways to > > go > > > > here: > > > > > > > > 1/ Break up the components into different service engines > > > > > > > > > Or break the components jar into different jars. > > > This would allow to replace all optional dependencies by non optional > > > dependencies > > > and the maven plugin could be used to generate SU and bundle all the > > > necessary dependencies. > > > > > > 2/ Turn the servicemix-components jar into an SE, add a dependencies > > on > > > the > > > > servicemix-lwcontainer and then change all the libs to optional > > false > > > > > > > > I'm not keen on the first way because I think the conversion to real > > > SE's > > > > will take some time and should be given space to make sure we are > > able > > > to > > > > address things like WSDL for services etc. > > > > > > > > In the second option we end up with a large SE though I believe it > > will > > > > provide all the functionality, I was thinknig that this would be a > > > > special > > > > packaging - ie. your can download just that big SE separate from the > > > > > other > > > > assemblies. > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. We need to rewrite the examples to be less focused on > > > servicemix-lwcontainer. > > > > > > I would like to try and get a discussion going on this since once this > > is > > > > out of the way we could then look to the work invovled in converting > > > some > > > > of > > > > the lw-container service engines into more complete JBI Service > > Engines > > > > (using the service-engine architype as a basis) and also work on > > puting > > > > more > > > > WSDL in place for those services :) > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
