On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Migration samples should definitively not go into svn because the source > environment, the start point for those apps is intended to be a different > platform, not Geronimo. There would be no point in keeping them into svn and > adding them as a part of the release process. You're suggesting the migration samples exist solely in the wiki? The makes them a little difficult to maintain, doesn't it? > > However there are a whole bunch of other sample apps in the doc and are G > specific and those are the ones we are discussing here. Or I need to start > reading the whole thread again :P > That's kind of what I was getting at. There's really two classes of samples here and I think everyone is just lumping them together. Maybe they aren't doing it intentionally, but I think some people are talking from the point of view of migration samples and some from the sample applications. > Cheers! > Hernan > > Jason Warner wrote: > > I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, so I'll throw it in here. So > > far, it seems that when we've been discussing samples, we're lumping the > > sample applications and the migration samples in together. Is this > > something we want to do? In my mind, they aren't really the same and > > shouldn't necessarily be in the same place. AFAIK, a sample application > > is supposed to be able to be checked out, built, and deployed on > > geronimo straight away to highlight some feature or functionality. The > > migration samples, though, are meant to be fiddled with before they can > > be deployed on Geronimo. If we lump them all in together, how is a user > > supposed to know which is which when browsing svn? Would it make sense > > to keep the migration samples in a separate space? > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > David Jencks wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: > > > > > >> Joe Bohn wrote: > > >>> David Jencks wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mar 12, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Donald Woods wrote: > > >>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 2) When to release the samples? I think we should make an > > effort > > >>>>>>> to release the samples concurrent with each Geronimo > release. > > >>>>>>> This is important because the jsp & servlet examples are > > >>>>>>> referenced from within the welcome page on Geronimo. I > suppose > > >>>>>>> we could remove that reference and eliminate the need to > > release > > >>>>>>> concurrently. > > >>>>>> why not move the samples back under geronimo/server, so they > are > > >>>>>> maintained and versioned with each release and can then be > > used as > > >>>>>> additional testsuite tests? If not, releasing right after a > > >>>>>> server release is fine. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I was thinking about doing this. It seems everybody thinks > we > > >>>>> should release them together anyway so what is the real value > > with > > >>>>> them being split out? Does anybody object to moving them > > back with > > >>>>> the server? > > >>>> > > >>>> well, since I thought our next goal with the server build was > to > > >>>> separate it into independently released plugins, I think > > putting the > > >>>> samples in with the main server build would be a big step > > backwards. > > >>> Well, I agree that it would appear to be a step backwards from > that > > >>> perspective. However, it would ensure the following: > > >>> 1) The samples would get released (not forgotten as has been > > the case > > >>> with 2.1) > > >>> 2) The samples would be released concurrent with the Geronimo > > release > > >>> so that they are available for use, education, and > > documentation from > > >>> day 1. It seems almost everybody is in favor of this. > > >>> 3) They could be leveraged in the testsuite tests (as Donald > > pointed > > >>> out) to help validate our build and find problems earlier. > > >>> I fail to see too many negatives from a practical perspective > > but I'm > > >>> certainly open to discussion .... I want to do what is best. > > >>> Perhaps we need to refine our plugin strategy. There are > > situations > > >>> where it makes sense to split things apart but there are also > > >>> situations where it might make sense to bundle things. > > >>> Joe > > >> > > >> Would those folks that feel strongly about not pulling these > samples > > >> back into the server repo please provide some rationale for > their > > >> argument as I have done for including them? It appears that the > > >> samples were removed without much thought given to how they > might > > >> eventually be released in conjunction with a server release. I > like > > >> the idea of modularity but in this case I don't see clear > > benefits to > > >> keeping them separate. > > >> > > >> Please keep in mind that including the samples in the server > source > > >> branch and releasing them concurrent with the server does not > mean > > >> that they are bundled with the server. They are still > independent > > >> artifacts. However, it would ensure that they are vetted with > the > > >> server release and are available when the server release is > > >> available. The samples are really only there to show value on > > top of > > >> a Geronimo server and they are tied to a specific server release > (at > > >> least that is how we have managed and documented them thus far) > so > > >> having released independent of the server doesn't appear to > > bring any > > >> value. > > >> > > >> I looked back through a number of old email threads and these > > samples > > >> were included in the welcome page with a lot of support at the > time > > >> (with a desire to have even more samples included or > > downloadable from > > >> the welcome page) ... several folks stating that they should be > > >> included with the server image itself. I certainly don't want > to > > >> bundle the samples with the server image but having the released > > with > > >> the server makes sense to me. > > > > > > I'm speculating a bit here. > > > > > > This might be similar to the testsuite being a bit monolithic. > > > > > > As a thought experiment, what if we... > > > - made the welcome page a plugin, and the piece of build > including it > > > also builds the samples > > > - the maven generated site includes the stuff you need to > > download (zips > > > etc) (I think this is doable) > > > > Are we using any maven site today? what type of info goes there? who > > consumes it? > > > > .zip samples download shouldn't be any different from the other > > downloads we have, right? > > > > Cheers! > > Hernan > > > > > - the welcome page links to the maven generated site > > > - this leaves the door open to making the welcome page + samples > > > independently versioned in the future, and possibly to selenium > > testing. > > > > > > - we split up the testsuite into integration tests for "plugins" > or > > > plugin groups, and they assemble the servers they need on the fly > > > > > > - assemblies may or may not include the welcome page plugin. > > > > > > dunno how practical this is for 2.1.1 > > > > > > thanks > > > david jencks > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Joe > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~Jason Warner > -- ~Jason Warner
