The checklist is looking good until now. I think that if we want to enforce a consistent feel over the samples we should agree on build tool, dependencies and launcher before considering the checklist final.
I would say let's stick with Maven for now, Apache Ant adds complexity and requires time to find an elegant way of writing a script which we don't afford now. As for how dependencies are declared, you've got much more experience with Tuscany to weight the pros and cons for each approach but I think we should use the one we consider best practice and present that to the user. For me base+extensions seems to be the way to go as it looks more loosely coupled and there's been the big effort of adding that in Beta1. Regarding the launcher, I have already expressed my opinion a couple of times but haven't seen any comments so I guess we're fine with the shell? Florian On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org> wrote: > Florian Moga wrote: > >> I'm +1 for having a set of standard requirements for the samples to be >> promoted to trunk and released. That's why I started the samples checklist >> wiki page in the first place. >> >> However, I don't think we need another two month long thread in order to >> determine which these standards should be. We already had this discussion >> and we can just summarize it. >> > I've updated the samples wiki page by adding a "Checklist" section > which is my attempt to write down what's expected (at a minimum) > for samples that are in the trunk. There's some overlap between this > and the preceding text but I didn't feel comfortable attempting a > merge at this stage. > > I've used the term "expected" rather than something like "mandatory > requirements" because (as Ant has pointed out) there isn't any > mechanism for policing or enforcing this. > > I've made the checklist as short as I think it can be. This means > that it doesn't contain any details of how the samples are built > (maven, ant, base + extension, pom or jar dependency) or run (shell, > maven Tuscany plugin, ant, etc.) I think it would be worth discussing > how prescriptive we want to be about these aspects, and anything else > that people think should be added (or subtracted). > > Comments? > > Simon > > As I mentioned before on the other thread, I'm fine with doing the release >> only with getting-started/ samples. With that in mind, I would say we >> shouldn't delay 2.0-Beta3 any more. It's a minor release anyway and most >> importantly users need the runtime code released. So I'm +1 for releasing >> 2.0-Beta3 now. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org <mailto: >> n...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> ant elder wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org >> <mailto:n...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> Following on from the discussion in [1], I'd like to establish >> whether or not the Tuscany developer community agrees that we >> should have some minimum standards for a sample to be part >> of trunk >> and be delivered in a released binary distribution. >> >> If there's agreement that we should establish this principle >> and >> have some minimum standards, I'll start another discussion >> thread >> on what those minimum standards should be. >> >> I am +1 that we should have some minimum standards for a >> sample to be >> in trunk and to be released as part of the binary distribution. >> >> Simon >> >> [1] >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tuscany-dev/201104.mbox/%3c4d9b41c8.50...@apache.org%3E >> >> >> >> I'm -1 Simon. That doesn't mean I think we should have rubbish >> samples, i just think the time spent rehashing this again would be >> better spent actually writing some samples and documentation. We've >> just spent two months debating the finer points of how to do >> samples >> and ended up with just 3 in trunk which not even everyone is >> completely happy with. We do have a clearer understanding now of >> what >> people think but now we need to just get on and do some. >> >> The Apache process is clear - it takes three +1s to do a >> release - it >> doesn't matter what rules happen to have been come up here in this >> thread 6 months down the road if there is a release with a sample >> that doesn't work but the release gets the votes then that is fine. >> >> Tuscany is the hardest project I know of in Apache to do >> releases, and >> i've seen a lot of Apache projects. The actual build process takes >> ages and then we drag it out for ages before people will vote >> and seem >> to make it obligatory to redo it several times over before >> people will >> vote +1. Thats shooting ourselves in the foot IMHO and instead of >> looking for more rules to make it even harder to get a release >> out it >> would be better to look for ways to get people to be more willing >> to >> promptly vote for releases. We'd get more releases much more >> often and >> then whats the big deal if some new sample slips through with a >> bug if >> it can be fixed in the next release which is only a short time >> away. >> >> 2.x has taken a long time and trunk had got a bit full up of >> samples >> that had been broken with all the refactoring and changes, we've >> taken >> all those out now and things are much more stable so if we're a >> little >> be diligent when adding samples now things should remain in better >> shape. >> >> ...ant >> >> >> Actually it should be easier / quicker to do releases if the trunk >> samples meet a reasonable quality standard and are kept working on >> an ongoing basis. Also, having some criteria for which samples are >> included in trunk would mean that we can release the trunk contents >> at any time without needing to debate which samples should be in the >> release and removing those that are unsuitable. >> >> Simon >> >> >> >
