[jira] Commented: (CONNECTORS-92) Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12903356#action_12903356 ] Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92: --- I am now ready to commit the connectors reorganization also, once I hear back. Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management --- Key: CONNECTORS-92 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92 Project: Apache Connectors Framework Issue Type: Wish Components: Build Reporter: Jettro Coenradie Attachments: move-to-maven-acf-framework.patch, Screen shot 2010-08-23 at 16.31.07.png I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it. If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working. So I have three questions: - Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant? - Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3] - Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if we change the project structure The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven standards) is attached to the issue -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (CONNECTORS-92) Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12903465#action_12903465 ] Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92: --- I should also clarify that, to me, servlet is not just a single class in any case, but a body of functionality responsible for fielding web requests. So I think the servlet label is quite accurate. Others, of course, doubtless have different definitions. ;-) Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management --- Key: CONNECTORS-92 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92 Project: Apache Connectors Framework Issue Type: Wish Components: Build Reporter: Jettro Coenradie Attachments: move-to-maven-acf-framework.patch, Screen shot 2010-08-23 at 16.31.07.png I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it. If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working. So I have three questions: - Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant? - Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3] - Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if we change the project structure The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven standards) is attached to the issue -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (CONNECTORS-92) Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12903463#action_12903463 ] Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92: --- bq. Wouldn't it be better to rename the *-servlet into something like war or web. There will probably be more things in there than a servlet. No, really, there's just the servlet. All that I did was break the authority service into a separate web application and jar file. Both of these were built before under the heading of authority-service, but since we're getting rigorous, I separated out the targets. Did the same thing for the api - there's now a servlet, and a service, one yields a jar, the other a war (which includes the jar). Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management --- Key: CONNECTORS-92 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92 Project: Apache Connectors Framework Issue Type: Wish Components: Build Reporter: Jettro Coenradie Attachments: move-to-maven-acf-framework.patch, Screen shot 2010-08-23 at 16.31.07.png I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it. If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working. So I have three questions: - Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant? - Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3] - Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if we change the project structure The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven standards) is attached to the issue -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (CONNECTORS-92) Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12903476#action_12903476 ] Jettro Coenradie commented on CONNECTORS-92: Oke, thats fine. But is the projects *-servlet a war? is that the web project? Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management --- Key: CONNECTORS-92 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92 Project: Apache Connectors Framework Issue Type: Wish Components: Build Reporter: Jettro Coenradie Attachments: move-to-maven-acf-framework.patch, Screen shot 2010-08-23 at 16.31.07.png I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it. If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working. So I have three questions: - Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant? - Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3] - Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if we change the project structure The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven standards) is attached to the issue -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (CONNECTORS-92) Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12903477#action_12903477 ] Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-92: --- No, the directories ending in -service produce wars. Those ending in -servlet produce a jar. Move from ant to maven or other build system with decent library management --- Key: CONNECTORS-92 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-92 Project: Apache Connectors Framework Issue Type: Wish Components: Build Reporter: Jettro Coenradie Attachments: move-to-maven-acf-framework.patch, Screen shot 2010-08-23 at 16.31.07.png I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it. If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working. So I have three questions: - Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant? - Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3] - Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if we change the project structure The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven standards) is attached to the issue -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: About name change
FWIW, I like Jack's suggestion of Apache Yukon, but we probably should see if there are any confusingly similar names out there (i.e. connector software named Yukon). On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote: Personally, I'd rather see a traditional, Apache-style name, but I can certainly live with whatever the PMC (?) endorses. I agree with the general@ criticism that the ACF name comes across as being the ultimate end-all connector framework for Apache land (land grab). We should acknowledge that in the future there might be other projects that seek to offer connector frameworks in Apache land. There really should be a handle to qualify the purely descriptive portion of the name - and we had one: Lucene, but it wasn't unique and even there did not acknowledge that in the future there could be other connector frameworks. Note: We effectively have a handle name today: LCF or ACF, but it is a distinctly non-Apache style of name. Why not go with an Apache-style name. That said, I do see that there are a minority of Apache Projects that have descriptive names, including HttpComponents, OpenWebBeans, TrafficServer, Web Services, XML Graphics. Well, there is also HTTP Server as well, but that is an anomaly since it is really just the original Apache itself. Maybe the question is what the current consensus preference is in Apache land and trying to go with the flow rather than try to go against the flow. In short, even if Connectors Framework remains the tail end of the name, a handle prefix is needed. Apache is the general prefix for ALL Apache projects and not a handle for any of them. If that handle is Connecto, the full name could be Connecto Connectors Framework, and the official project name would be Apache Connecto Connectors Framework. That said, I am not a fan of trying to put the project description into the name in raw English form. So, my preference there would be to drop Connectors Framework from the name and stick with Connecto, or whatever other handle is chosen. As I said, I will defer to the PMC (?) endorses, but I would hope that there is some consistency with current and traditional Apache project naming conventions. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@googlemail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:50 AM To: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Cc: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: About name change On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote: Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first? I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it? Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss here! simon Karl On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey folks, I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@. Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss further. Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name. Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and they are less ambiguous. Any suggestions, thoughts? simon -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
[jira] Commented: (CONNECTORS-98) API should be pure RESTful with the API verb represented using the HTTP GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12903556#action_12903556
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-98:
---
Jack, if you intend to work on this, can you give me an idea of roughly when I
can expect to see something? It looks like there's going to be another
renaming exercise, and I'd rather not step too hard on ongoing work, so please
us apprised of your schedule/progress.
API should be pure RESTful with the API verb represented using the HTTP
GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods
-
Key: CONNECTORS-98
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98
Project: Apache Connectors Framework
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: API
Affects Versions: LCF Release 0.5
Reporter: Jack Krupansky
Fix For: LCF Release 0.5
(This was originally a comment on CONNECTORS-56 dated 7/16/2010.)
It has come to my attention that the API would be more pure RESTful if the
API verb was represented using the HTTP GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods and the
input argument identifier represented in the context path.
So, GET outputconnection/get \{connection_name:_connection_name_\} would
be GET outputconnections/connection_name
and GET outputconnection/delete \{connection_name:_connection_name_\}
would be DELETE outputconnections/connection_name
and GET outputconnection/list would be GET outputconnections
and PUT outputconnection/save
\{outputconnection:_output_connection_object_\} would be PUT
outputconnections/connection_name
\{outputconnection:_output_connection_object_\}
What we have today is certainly workable, but just not as pure as some
might desire. It would be better to take care of this before the initial
release so that we never have to answer the question of why it wasn't done as
a proper RESTful API.
BTW, I did check to verify that an HttpServlet running under Jetty can
process the DELETE and PUT methods (using the doDelete and doPut method
overrides.)
Also, POST should be usable as an alternative to PUT for API calls that have
large volumes of data.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (CONNECTORS-98) API should be pure RESTful with the API verb represented using the HTTP GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12903559#action_12903559
]
Jack Krupansky commented on CONNECTORS-98:
--
I'll be mostly looking through code and thinking it through and looking at the
API string changes first, so I may not touch any code for another week, if not
longer. Feel free to rename or refactor code at will. I'll probably let you
know in advance of what changes I expect to make in the code.
API should be pure RESTful with the API verb represented using the HTTP
GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods
-
Key: CONNECTORS-98
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98
Project: Apache Connectors Framework
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: API
Affects Versions: LCF Release 0.5
Reporter: Jack Krupansky
Fix For: LCF Release 0.5
(This was originally a comment on CONNECTORS-56 dated 7/16/2010.)
It has come to my attention that the API would be more pure RESTful if the
API verb was represented using the HTTP GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods and the
input argument identifier represented in the context path.
So, GET outputconnection/get \{connection_name:_connection_name_\} would
be GET outputconnections/connection_name
and GET outputconnection/delete \{connection_name:_connection_name_\}
would be DELETE outputconnections/connection_name
and GET outputconnection/list would be GET outputconnections
and PUT outputconnection/save
\{outputconnection:_output_connection_object_\} would be PUT
outputconnections/connection_name
\{outputconnection:_output_connection_object_\}
What we have today is certainly workable, but just not as pure as some
might desire. It would be better to take care of this before the initial
release so that we never have to answer the question of why it wasn't done as
a proper RESTful API.
BTW, I did check to verify that an HttpServlet running under Jetty can
process the DELETE and PUT methods (using the doDelete and doPut method
overrides.)
Also, POST should be usable as an alternative to PUT for API calls that have
large volumes of data.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
