On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I'd like to actually do some work on this over the weekend to ensure we > can publish it in future, which warrants having the previously mentioned > discussion :) Yep. > > I propose to publish the jar and its sources as one set of maven artifacts, > with the rar published separately as another. > Makes perfect sense as the RAR is nothing more than it's constituent jars/descriptors just packaged for JEE compliance. > For the jar, I would retain the jca module structure as it exists now, but > changing its jar artifact to actually be called 'jca' instead of hacked to > become 'ra as it is now', giving qpid-jca-0.XX.jar as the jar output. This > would allow removing all hackery involved with renaming the jar file in the > tree and simplify generation of the maven artifacts for it. > Agree in principle. We have internal build processes/testing that may have to change as a result so to be a good citizen I would like to have the discussion with my colleagues but I don't see it as being an issue. > For the rar, I would add continue to have the standard jca module build > produce the rar, adding an additional step to output maven artifacts for > the rar while generating the maven output for the jar. I would propose > either keeping the existing name of qpid-ra-0.XX.rar for compatibility or > change it to something like qpid-jca-ra-0.XX.rar to better denote its > linkaage with the jca module. > Much like the point above, I agree I just need to run it by those involved in our internal process. Note, if we do change names the documentation will have to change as a result, but that is not that big of a deal either. > Thoughts? > Thanks for taking the time to think about this. Regards, Weston > Robbie > > > On 16 January 2013 12:32, Weston M. Price <wpr...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Hi Robbie, >> All great questions. Wholeheartedly agree on >> >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing >> the >>> artifact in this release. >> >> Let's table for this release and discuss further for a long term solution. >> >> Thanks for your response, again, great points/questions all around. >> >> Regards, >> >> -W >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Weston, >>> >>> I had a think about / quick look at doing this, and cant help but think >> it >>> has now missed the boat. >>> >>> In terms of putting up the artifact we have in the 'java release' tar, it >>> shouldn't be too hard to do on an ad-hoc basis, however doing it properly >>> on an ongoing basis it isnt so simple and raised several questions and >>> things to consider that would stop me from jumping on publishing it >> ad-hoc >>> for 0.20. >>> >>> Producing the output as part of the normal build would be a good bit more >>> involved and rather contrived compared to what is there now for the >> clients >>> and broker modules, both due to the namaing split (jca vs ra) present in >>> the jca module, and the fact its the first and only module producing >>> multiple artifacts (inluding non-jar artifacts, i.e the rar, which >> require >>> a very slightly different pom) that happens to have the same name but >>> different extension as other artifacts in the module (the jar), and also >>> has artifacts that dont have sources jars to go with it (the rar). >>> >>> Some of the questions I had when thinking about it were: >>> - Do we publish the jar as well? >>> It seems at least some other projects do, possibly as the sources are >> only >>> for the jar and not the rar. >>> >>> - Should the rar and the jar really have the same name (excluding the >>> extension) if we do? >>> It seems at least some projects artifacts dont (e.g the rar is built by a >>> maven module for the rar that depends on a module for the jar). >>> >>> - What would we call it? >>> qpid-ra isnt necessarily my first pick for a maven artifact name, but >> thats >>> what it would currently be. >>> >>> That last question and the earlier mentioned complications in actually >>> generating maven artifacts for the jca module lead me on to a related >> topic >>> I have been meaning to bring up for some time. The naming split within >> the >>> jca module is quite annoying, and over complicates things in general but >>> far more so in situations such as this. I think it is time we either >>> renamed the module to ra (if we think the historic file name is the most >>> important thing), or change the output filenames (if we think the source >>> tree module name is the most important thing). If we were to change the >>> filenames in any way (including giving the rar and jar different names) >>> then that would be another reason I would hold off publishing it with the >>> current naming. >>> >>> Going back to where I started, I think the questions and build process >>> change required to start doing this on a long term basis warrant a bit of >>> discussion and thought, to the extent that I would hold fire on pushing >> the >>> artifact in this release. >>> >>> Robbie >>> >>> >>> On 15 January 2013 17:09, Weston M. Price <wpr...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Robbie, >>>> There is a JIRA >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4445 >>>> >>>> Basically requesting that the JCA binaries also be uploaded to the Maven >>>> repository. I am more than willing to look at this, but if you have >>>> familiarity with the process it might go much faster. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Weston >>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The maven binaries for the Java clients and broker are staged at: >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-133 >>>>> >>>>> Robbie >>>>> >>>>> On 10 January 2013 12:48, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, everyone. The proposed final 0.20 release candidate, RC4, is >>>>>> available here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.20-rc4/ >>>>>> >>>>>> My testing showed everything in good shape, including the proton >>>>>> integration. >>>>>> >>>>>> RC4 has the following changes versus RC3: >>>>>> >>>>>> r1430909 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions >>>>>> without good cause >>>>>> >>>>>> r1430904 | kwall | (Wed, 09 Jan 2013) | 5 lines >>>>>> QPID-4503: Producer transaction timeout detection feature may produce >>>>>> suprious open/idle alerts and close client connections/sessions >>>>>> without good cause >>>>>> >>>>>> r1430554 | astitcher | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 5 lines >>>>>> QPID-4095: Move the directory iteration into FileSysDir >>>>>> >>>>>> r1430452 | jross | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 1 line >>>>>> QPID-4368: Add missing dist file >>>>>> >>>>>> r1430321 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines >>>>>> QPID-4521: ensure that the routing key is properly passed to the >>>>>> alternate Topic exchange by the adapter. Add unit tests for the >>>>>> adapter methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> r1430320 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines >>>>>> QPID-4519: return true for VirtualHost MBean isStatusEnabled, dont >>>>>> update stats when doing so, and stop using a synchronized method as a >>>>>> result >>>>>> >>>>>> r1430319 | robbie | (Tue, 08 Jan 2013) | 4 lines >>>>>> QPID-4512: stop the delete visitor indicating completion upon the >>>>>> first matching queue entry, or any for that matter: it needs to check >>>>>> them all. >>>>>> >>>>>> r1424598 | kgiusti | (Thu, 20 Dec 2012) | 1 line >>>>>> NO-JIRA: merge compile fix from trunk >>>>>> >>>>>> r1423964 | robbie | (Wed, 19 Dec 2012) | 6 lines >>>>>> QPID-4511: move the broker-plugins lib dir under build/scratch to >>>>>> prevent it being included in the binary produced by 'ant release'. >>>>>> >>>>>> The artifacts are signed, and if approved by vote, these bits >>>>>> precisely would ship as 0.20 GA. I'll follow this with a separate >>>>>> [VOTE] mail. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Alex, Keith, Robbie, and Ken for posting your test outcomes on >>>>>> the list. It is very much appreciated. Please try RC4 and prepare to >>>>>> vote! >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Justin >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 0.20 release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/020-release.html >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >>>> >>>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
