Definitely useful thoughts Jon. Thx for sharing. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore < [email protected]> wrote: > Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or > propose anything too controversial :). > > What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release plugin > or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java > )? > I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good option? > > That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB numbers. > My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be > perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked > quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both to a > version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would require > some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but > aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE 1.7.x > / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB 5.0 > would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0. > > Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of OpenEJB and > TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing > dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions of > OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be concerned > that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the > releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release for > OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other. > > Hope that these are useful thoughts. > > Jon > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use org.apache.tomee as > > groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since tomee is > > the openejb name. > > > > We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to > tomee > > and assume we cant split both. > > Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" <[email protected]> > a > > écrit : > > > > > I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2 > different > > > versions in the same tree. > > > The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject with > > its > > > own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other dep > > > (openjpa, cxf to name a few). > > > > > > Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided > to > > > stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB, > etc > > > with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some > benefits > > > but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well. > > > > > > That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a different > > > lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in > the > > > same tree. > > > > > > The problem I can see. > > > - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous". TomEE > by > > > itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching > > from > > > 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue > > > considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions. > > > > > > - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as previous > > and > > > no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or Java > > EE > > > versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for Java > > EE 7 > > > Web Profile, etc > > > > > > - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion > and > > as > > > we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell. > > > > > > What's "the less worst" solution we could use? > > > Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep > the > > > versions and split the source tree and the releases > > > Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with the > > > same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE version. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes. > > > > > > > > A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of OpenEJB > > 4.x > > > > and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools > virtually > > > > impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We > > shoot > > > > ourselves in the foot with this one every time. > > > > > > > > I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another option > > > > would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention. > The > > > > issue is the version to use? > > > > > > > > So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about > > aligning > > > > with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like > TomEE/OpenEJB > > > 7.x > > > > for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8? > > > > > > > > Andy. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andy Gumbrecht > > > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
