Hi,
>>> On 07.08.2020 20:55, Eric wrote:
>>>> Then I checked which OJ lib dependencies rely on JTS and it seems that
there is only deegree 2,
>>>> without considering here the plethora of extensions/plugins.
>>> which is the main obstacle. the only clean solution i see is to branch out
a new OJ 2.x that initially will break compatibility to all external plugins.
that's the bad news.
>>> the good news is that this forces us to retouch pretty much all of them
and
during this effort we might eventually come up with a working plugin manager
after all.
>> Less than a day of work should be required (if not less) to update all the
plugins which do not rely on a dependency which relies itself on JTS. I'm going
to test it, to see if it's the case.
>> I tried with my plugins and I just needed a couple of seconds to do it.
again. we don't have sources for all extensions in OJ Plus at hand or setup to
build at all. the challenge won't be the modding but the finding and setting up
plugin repos.
I wasn't aware of this situation. All of a sudden, it seems to be
another challenge to migrate all the plugins...
Could we decide to norrow openjump-plus to extensions hosted by the project
only, and revide the idea of a plugin manager (could be a student project ?).
there is a critical bug opening JMP project files which should be fixed before
we branch
https://sourceforge.net/p/jump-pilot/bugs/496/
The idea here is to test the migration based on the OJ 1.15 release, to
know if it works and to see what could be improved during the final
migration. Nothing definitive.
We'll try to fix this bug before the definitive migration.
Any format preference for this document? MD (Markdown) or RST
(reStructuredText)? Both are easily and directly readable from GitHub /
GitLab. I would probably suggest Markdown as it's slightly more common
and because we don't need the specificities of RST at this stage.
I also suggest markdown for the same reasons
>> - (Bonus) Upgrading the Log4j dependency to v2 and therefore removing the
current security issue in link with it.
the reason that this was not done before is that some extensions were compiled
against it. as we are doing a clean break anyway i am not opposed anymore. note:
we have our "own" com.vividsolutions.jump.workbench.Logger which is supposed to
be the one stop solution for extension but internally uses Log4J again.
What I could do is, once JTS and the OJ code have been updated on the
master branch, to create another branch (based on the latter) to test a
Log4j update. What do you think?
It is good for me,
>> Open discussion:
>> - Preliminary remark: I don't want at any point of this process, acting as
if I was taking this project under my umbrella/name. As I wrote to Michaël,
you're the drivers/guardians of this project, I'm just a passenger. Therefore,
just let me know what you prefer, the way you want to do things, and I'll act
accordingly. Thanks,
thanks for contributing your time and effort!
It's the least I can do after having used OJ for years.
I this migration to github and jts 1.17 succeeds, it will be a major step in the
evolution of the project, thanks for your effort,
>> - Would you prefer an open or a private repository? Why do I consider the
private option here? To avoid any confusion with the current OpenJUMP repository
on sourceforge and to avoid some possible premature forks,
we can easily add notes in the Readme pointing out the provisional status of the
OJ2 development. anyone wanting to fork still i have no objections. after all
it's not called open source for nothing ;)
I'm waiting some other answers (from Peppe, Michaël, etc.) on that. If
none, I'll create a public repository.
I would say let's be open from the start, but I like the following proposition
to have an openjump/openjump-test project first (or maybe
openjump/openjump-migration), the time to fix main problems before we create a
more official openjump/openjump (to avoid to send a bad image of a project with
plenty of inconsistencies).
>> - Where do I need to create this project? In my personal account, or an
OpenJUMP organisation is created, and the project takes place there (I would
personally prefer this option, in link with my preliminary remark)? If an
OpenJUMP organisation is created, do you want to create it yourself or is it OK
if I create it?
is "organisation" something like a team definition provided by github/-lab ?
Yes indeed. The term "organisation" is used by GitHub, and the terms
"group" and "subgroup" are used by GitLab:
- (GitHub) https://github.blog/2010-06-29-introducing-organizations/
- (GitLab) https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/group/
An Organisation and a Group can contain several projects. It is quite
useful to easily link related projects. In the OJ context, one project
could be the OJ core, another one the default plugins, another the PLUS
plugins, etc. (or a different project for each plugin).
Even if there is no real convention (afaik), organisations and groups
are often written in lower case with hyphens if necessary. For example:
- https://github.com/geotools/geotools
- https://github.com/locationtech/jts
So for OpenJUMP I would suggest:
- openjump for the organisation / group,
- openjump for the main code,
- openjump-test for the temporary project we are talking about here, to
avoid any confusion.
Let me know if you agree with this naming, and what to do, i.e. do you
want that I create this organisation / group or if you prefer doing it?
If you let me do it, I'll transfer immediately the ownership to all of you.
It is OK for me (consider openjump-migration as an alternative to
openjump-test). Maybe we could also consider the name openjump2 to underline the
potential compatibility problems users may encounter if they use external
plugins. We'll also have to decide about some conventions for projects of the
same organisation hosting extensions : I would suggest to always include the
word plugin (or extension) in th eproject name, except for special cases like
sextante if we clone the code in openjump/.
>> - Have you already got some GitHub/GitLab accounts that I could use to let
you access the project as administrators?
sure, https://github.com/edeso
and https://github.com/mukoki
Thanks.
>> So if I sum up the questions:
>> - Github vs Gitlab,
>> - Open vs private repository (just for the period of this test),
>> - Where? Personal account vs OpenJUMP organisation,
>> - GitHub/GitLab accounts for administration.
for preliminary testing on your side feel free to use whichever service
private/public shouldn't matter. for an eventual fork actually used as basis for
OJ2 development let's still talk about details. i'm (and probably the others as
well) not very familiar with setting up projects on either github/-lab.
If you're happy with a public one, it's probably better as we'll benefit
from better CI/CD tools. This should allow us to test the current OJ
builds, maybe to try different ones if necessary or at least to adapt
the current process within the context of GitHub/GitLab, as it appeared
to be a crucial aspect of the migration.
This is really a test to see the feasibility (Git migration, JTS update,
OJ code update consequently, builds, plugins update, etc.) -- based on
the current OJ 1.15 release for now --, to document the different
undertaken steps in order to be able to reproduce them if needed and
when decided (for example to create OJ 2.x).
>> About Ede's b2 point: I tested OJ with a Java 11 environment both with
OpenJDK and an Oracle one. It works with both, as far as I tested it. I didn't
try with Java 14. I prefer using OpenJDK as there is no commercial restriction
with it.
>>
agreed, we should strive to be openjdk compatible exactly because of the
restrictions that Oracle introduced on their java runtime.
>> Please let me know what you prefer and I'll act accordingly.
up to you, risking that licensing might not be possible, you may work out a
proper conversion routine to a git service of your choice. using your
documentation we may then using OJ 1.15.1/1.16 as a base for OJ2 development
when/if the licensing is cleared up.
maybe you can shed a light which you think would be the better choice
(github/-lab)?
As a lot of other GIS related projects are already on GitHub, such as
JTS, GeoTools, GeoNode, etc., it seems that it would be a good place to
start with. Some projects like GEOS are directly hosted by OSGeo, then
mirrored on GitHub and GitLab, and thus benefiting from different CI/CD
tools.
Quick summary about the current options:
- choice of GitHub,
- creation of an openjump (lowercase) organisation in GitHub --
question: who does this creation? if you let me do it, I transfer the
co-ownership to Ede, Michaël and Peppe (others?) as soon as I know their
individual GitHub accounts (already known for Ede). This organisation
has a link to the OpenJUMP website, to the OJ mailing list
(jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net)
- creation of a openjump-test (lowercase) repository within this
organisation,
- this repository is a public one,
- migration of the OJ core (1.15 release -- revision 6242) containing
the trunk, tags and branches to the openjump-test repository -- being
aware that there is a critical bug reported here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/jump-pilot/bugs/496/,
- this migration uses <sfnetusername>@users.sourceforge.net for the
authors (i.e. all committers), and keeps the history since the first
available SVN revision (using the logs, it seems to be the 859),
- update of JTS (version 1.17) including the update of related OJ code
(solving the two classes mentioned in my previous message), the update
of pom.xml, the removal of deegree-core 2 / deejump code (basically WFS
related code), the creation of a README.md or .rst to clearly state that
this a migration/update test and a link to the current releases / code,
the creation of a documentation / report about this migration at the
root of the repository named MIGRATION.md,
- later, creation of another branch to test if it's possible to use
Log4j v2.
Ede, Michaël and Peppe, could you let me know if you agree or/and
disagree about one or several aspects of this list.
Once all your answers are received and a compromised reached, I'll
proceed accordingly.
Best,
Eric
so far.. thanks! ede
_______________________________________________
Jump-pilot-devel mailing list
Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
_______________________________________________
Jump-pilot-devel mailing list
Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
_______________________________________________
Jump-pilot-devel mailing list
Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
