Right.
I will try maven profiles and see if I can find a way to sort this out.

On 8/1/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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
>
>




--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Reply via email to