Uh Oh.
I pushed by accident. I know what you are all saying. Sure it was an
accident... But it really was.
What should I do now? Try to figure how to revert it or only attempt
that if people object?
Kevin.
On 3/22/13 12:36 PM, Kevin Minder wrote:
Thanks. Just feeling this out and trying to figure out how to go fast
without being ignoring the community. I'll be interested in what the
mentors have to say on the topic.
On 3/22/13 12:25 PM, larry mccay wrote:
I say make it so.
Is this any different than a refactoring of the source, really?
I think that votes are probably required for things that affect the
community like a release which goes to the outside world.
A change that fundamentally changes the architecture in such a way
that existing extensions from outside the project will be affected
would be another thing that we would need a vote for.
A change in the charter and vision of the project would probably
warrant a vote.
IMHO - this is more of an internal change that doesn't affect the
community or any existing extensions and shouldn't be slowed down by a
vote.
That said...
+1 to the proposed layout and I suggest that you just commit it once
done.
If you are unsure about it a review request would suffice.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Kevin Minder
<[email protected]> wrote:
So how does this work?
I've spent the last 24 hours digging deep into Maven assemblies and
finally
have a working standalone prototype that can be used to implement
the second
model described below.
Both Larry and I prefer this model instead of the current model. This
preferred model has individual jars as opposed to creating large
executable
jars that contain all dependencies.
So my question is how long should I wait to implement?
I don't really expect much of an opinion from anyone other that
Larry at
this point BTW.
Perhaps I'll do the work and submit a patch to the list for review
and if
nobody has input by say Monday morning apply the patch?
On 3/21/13 3:26 PM, larry mccay wrote:
The other option I can see is something like this where bin/ and lib/
would
change
bin/
gateway.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and
class
path referring to JARs in lib/
ldap.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and
class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
shell.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class
and class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
lib/
gateway-server-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-test-ldap-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-shell-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
commons-io-2.4.jar
groovy-1.5.6.jar
jetty-6.1.26.jar
shiro-core-1.2.1.jar
... many more ...
I believe that this is my preference.
We may also want to add a gateway-common module that can be pulled out
as a separate jar so that shell doesn't need to depend on all of
server in order for them to share internal dependencies.
Anyway - this approach gets my +1.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Kevin Minder
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I want to raise an issue I been thinking about regarding the
layout of
the
install. In particular the layout of the JARs. Currently the
build is
using the Maven Shade plugin to create a single executable JARs for
things
like the server (bin/server-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar), client shell
(bin/shell-0.2.0-SHAPSHOT.jar) and test LDAP server
(bin/ldap-0.2.0.SNAPSHOT.jar)
On one had I like this because it is neat and tidy.
On the other hand wearing my potential RM has it raises some
concerns.
1) It complicates the LICENSE and NOTICE file generation since it is
difficult to see what the dependencies are other than from reports.
2) The server and the shell likely share some dependencies.
Creating self
contained JARs for each causes duplication and disk bloat.
3) Does this cause or solve a patch issue? Is it easier for
customer to
be
given a new server-0.2.1-SNAPSHOT.jar to use instead of
potentially a set
of
patched JARs?
4) The Apache build env seems to be running Maven 2 and the shade
plugin
we
are using required Maven 3.
So this is what the "install" looks like now
bin/
gateway-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
ldap-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
shell-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
lib/ - Empty but reserved for future use
ext/ - Empty but to be used by customers for custom extension
samples/ - Distributed sample files
templates/ - Distributed configuration templates
deployments/ - Location for customer topology deployments
The other option I can see is something like this where bin/ and lib/
would
change
bin/
gateway.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and
class
path referring to JARs in lib/
ldap.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and
class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
shell.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class
and class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
lib/
gateway-server-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-test-ldap-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-shell-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
commons-io-2.4.jar
groovy-1.5.6.jar
jetty-6.1.26.jar
shiro-core-1.2.1.jar
... many more ...
Kevin.
