On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:44 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. The idea behind this is that we should have relevant migration apps from version X of "JEE Application Server" to Version Y of Geronimo available very near or at the release of Geronimo version Y. It is incredibly painful attempting to keep migration samples relatively consistent and up to date when not in svn repository, because as is making changes requires downloading the older zip file, extracting it, adding it to eclipse, making changes, deleting the eclipse project files and making sure there are no binaries present, and then re-creating the zip and uploading it to wiki. On top of these pains, it makes it very difficult to track changes made to migration sample apps and we start running into potential legal issues by the possibility of hosting binaries that should not be there. I ran into a number of questionable pieces that I removed when cleaning up and checking in the migration samples for server version 1.0. > > 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 Like jason has said, there are really two different sample app types, both of which we need to come to a clear decision on. > > 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 > -- Erik B. Craig
