Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: > On lundi 28 février 2011 at 14:49, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > (4) work together with Pierre to get Studio back to 100% (jars, > bundles in build need adjusting) > > Completed! > > It was not very easy but I finally get it working. > I had to use kind of a nasty hack to force the start of the new Protocol > LDAP Codec bundle, but it's good now. > > Ready to move to next steps whenever you're ready Alex. > OK thanks Pierre you saved the day here. So the next step (5) is just to swap out the trunks with what we have in milestones. Will do that now if no one has objections. Regards, Alex
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On lundi 28 février 2011 at 14:49, Alex Karasulu wrote: (4) work together with Pierre to get Studio back to 100% (jars, > bundles in build need adjusting) Completed! It was not very easy but I finally get it working. I had to use kind of a nasty hack to force the start of the new Protocol LDAP Codec bundle, but it's good now. Ready to move to next steps whenever you're ready Alex. Regards, Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
Here's where we are now: (4) work together with Pierre to get Studio back to 100% (jars, > bundles in build need adjusting) > Now with this new directory structure we probably need to review module artifactIds and change them in shared. And then move up the stack to correct changes in ApacheDS and Studio. Best, Alex
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
> > (3) swap out milestones with personal branch > Reorg worked, swapping out the milestones now.
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > OK Pierre and I talked on IRC. This is a good time with relatively > little activity that may pose the least disruption to others. So we're > going to push the reorg and promotions to trunks and milestones to > have the same paths. Here's the process which I will begin after > posting this mail: > > (1) merge into my personal branch from trunks and milestones - all > changes will be up to date on personal branch. COMPLETED !!! > (2) do the reorg STARTING AFTER FULL BUILD AND INTEG TEST !!! > (3) swap out milestones with personal branch > (4) work together with Pierre to get Studio back to 100% (jars, > bundles in build need adjusting) > (5) swap out trunks with fully operational reorganized milestones branch > (6) kick off the M2 release cycle > (7) keep working towards M3 in milestones/personal branches
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
Thanks Pierre! On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: > I will help you on that task. > > Regards, > Pierre-Arnaud > > On lundi 28 février 2011 at 14:29, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > OK if there are no objections I will merge in from trunks and > milestones first. Then I will re-organize as stated then swap out > milestones. > > Can we then work on milestones instead of trunk? I just want to make > sure the path changes do not cause issues. > > The idea is to get this quickly into trunk and we can all work off the > same paths from then on even if on different branches? > > Regards, > Alex > >
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
OK Pierre and I talked on IRC. This is a good time with relatively little activity that may pose the least disruption to others. So we're going to push the reorg and promotions to trunks and milestones to have the same paths. Here's the process which I will begin after posting this mail: (1) merge into my personal branch from trunks and milestones - all changes will be up to date on personal branch. (2) do the reorg (3) swap out milestones with personal branch (4) work together with Pierre to get Studio back to 100% (jars, bundles in build need adjusting) (5) swap out trunks with fully operational reorganized milestones branch (6) kick off the M2 release cycle (7) keep working towards M3 in milestones/personal branches Regards, Alex On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > OK if there are no objections I will merge in from trunks and > milestones first. Then I will re-organize as stated then swap out > milestones. > > Can we then work on milestones instead of trunk? I just want to make > sure the path changes do not cause issues. > > The idea is to get this quickly into trunk and we can all work off the > same paths from then on even if on different branches? > > Regards, > Alex >
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
I will help you on that task. Regards, Pierre-Arnaud On lundi 28 février 2011 at 14:29, Alex Karasulu wrote: > OK if there are no objections I will merge in from trunks and > milestones first. Then I will re-organize as stated then swap out > milestones. > > Can we then work on milestones instead of trunk? I just want to make > sure the path changes do not cause issues. > > The idea is to get this quickly into trunk and we can all work off the > same paths from then on even if on different branches? > > Regards, > Alex >
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
OK if there are no objections I will merge in from trunks and milestones first. Then I will re-organize as stated then swap out milestones. Can we then work on milestones instead of trunk? I just want to make sure the path changes do not cause issues. The idea is to get this quickly into trunk and we can all work off the same paths from then on even if on different branches? Regards, Alex
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
Ooops premature e-mail send. ... On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > On 2/28/11 1:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> >> Hi Emmanuel, SNIP ... > >> The archetype module? It contains some Maven archetypes for rapidly >> setting up new extension oriented maven projects. Like for example an >> archetype to start a new control project or a new ext req/resp pair. > > Ahh, ok. Call it maven-archetype, then, it would be more explicit. Can do that but then it will be in the name. Nesting is causing longer artifact names so I was trying to conserve. >> >>> Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. >> >> I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you >> want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to >> that. > > Not a big deal, trying to connect the two mails you sent, was thinking you > wanted to get M2 out now. Yeah the reorg can be done in 2 hours. I was thinking of doing it before merging into the milestones branch, and before asking Pierre to help with fixing up Studio. > Sorry for the short answers, I'm a bit busy dealing with real life atm. No worries at all. Thanks, Alex
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > On 2/28/11 1:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> >> Hi Emmanuel, >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny >> wrote: ldap/ codec/ model/ schema/ schema-converter/ >>> >>> wouldn't it be better to make it a sub-module ? >> >> Yes these are all sub modules. > > I mean, schema-convertor as a sub-model under schema/ OH OK I see. Sure yeah. client-api/ codec-standalone/ all/ >>> >>> Shouldn't it be a separated module ? >> >> Hmm I don't quite understand you here. These are all separate modules >> broken down for better hierarchical organization. Could you be a bit >> more specific, I want to make sure I understand you fully. > > The 'all' module shoudl'nt it be moved at the top level ? This all module is for all of LDAP not all of shared. The idea is to create one big shaded jar file that can be used instead of all our dependencies. It's more for people dropping in this jar instead of using an archetype for a Maven based LDAP project that can pull down all the deps. > What is this module about ? This all-in-one jar should not be used in Maven projects as a dependency. It's for quick use and testing. Down the line it can even have a main in the jar to enable use as a quick use command line client. >> The archetype module? It contains some Maven archetypes for rapidly >> setting up new extension oriented maven projects. Like for example an >> archetype to start a new control project or a new ext req/resp pair. > > Ahh, ok. Call it maven-archetype, then, it would be more explicit. >> >>> Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. >> >> I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you >> want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to >> that. > > Not a big deal, trying to connect the two mails you sent, was thinking you > wanted to get M2 out now. > > Sorry for the short answers, I'm a bit busy dealing with real life atm. > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > >
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On 2/28/11 1:02 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: Hi Emmanuel, On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: ldap/ codec/ model/ schema/ schema-converter/ wouldn't it be better to make it a sub-module ? Yes these are all sub modules. I mean, schema-convertor as a sub-model under schema/ client-api/ codec-standalone/ all/ Shouldn't it be a separated module ? Hmm I don't quite understand you here. These are all separate modules broken down for better hierarchical organization. Could you be a bit more specific, I want to make sure I understand you fully. The 'all' module shoudl'nt it be moved at the top level ? What is this module about ? The archetype module? It contains some Maven archetypes for rapidly setting up new extension oriented maven projects. Like for example an archetype to start a new control project or a new ext req/resp pair. Ahh, ok. Call it maven-archetype, then, it would be more explicit. Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to that. Not a big deal, trying to connect the two mails you sent, was thinking you wanted to get M2 out now. Sorry for the short answers, I'm a bit busy dealing with real life atm. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: > On lundi 28 février 2011 at 13:02, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. Yeah did not think of that. We did not announce M1 at all so it was safe to make aggressive changes. Alex > I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you > want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to > that. > > If we are going to advertise a little more on M2 than we did for M1 to our > users, I'd recommend that we reorganize before M2. > It will avoid future breakage in the builds of our users since artifacts ids > might change. > > Regards, > Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On lundi 28 février 2011 at 13:02, Alex Karasulu wrote: Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. > > I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you > want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to > that. If we are going to advertise a little more on M2 than we did for M1 to our users, I'd recommend that we reorganize before M2. It will avoid future breakage in the builds of our users since artifacts ids might change. Regards, Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
Hi Alex, Very good idea. I like this reorganization a lot. At some point with our number of projects increasing, it really makes sense to group them in some kind of logical organization. We did the same thing for Studio a few months ago. +1 Regards, Pierre-Arnaud On lundi 28 février 2011 at 04:50, Alex Karasulu wrote: > Hi all, > > Shared has grown somewhat and I think it will grow more as we tack on > more protocol additions and functionality. I was thinking of using > some project module hierarchy to try to establish some organization we > can grow with. > > Here's what I was thinking: > > shared/ > i18n/ > util/ > integ/ > asn1/ > api/ > ber/ > dsml/ > parser/ > engine/ > ldap/ > codec/ > model/ > schema/ > schema-converter/ > client-api/ > codec-standalone/ > all/ > protocol/ > mina/ > extras/ > aci/ > sp/ > trigger/ > util/ > archetype/ > control/ > extended/ > schema/ > codec/ > api/ > plugin/ > > The deepest level is 5 and we'd concat levels into the names as we > kind of do already. Here is the very last node, > shared-ldap-extras-codec-plugin, as an example of the artifactId > composition standard. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Alex >
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
Hi Emmanuel, On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > On 2/28/11 4:50 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> >> Hi all, > > comments in line. >> >> Shared has grown somewhat and I think it will grow more as we tack on >> more protocol additions and functionality. I was thinking of using >> some project module hierarchy to try to establish some organization we >> can grow with. >> >> Here's what I was thinking: >> >> shared/ >> i18n/ >> util/ >> integ/ >> asn1/ >> api/ >> ber/ >> dsml/ >> parser/ >> engine/ >> ldap/ >> codec/ >> model/ >> schema/ >> schema-converter/ > > wouldn't it be better to make it a sub-module ? Yes these are all sub modules. >> >> client-api/ >> codec-standalone/ >> all/ > > Shouldn't it be a separated module ? Hmm I don't quite understand you here. These are all separate modules broken down for better hierarchical organization. Could you be a bit more specific, I want to make sure I understand you fully. Thanks. >> >> protocol/ >> mina/ >> extras/ >> aci/ >> sp/ >> trigger/ >> util/ >> archetype/ > > What is this module about ? The archetype module? It contains some Maven archetypes for rapidly setting up new extension oriented maven projects. Like for example an archetype to start a new control project or a new ext req/resp pair. >> >> control/ >> extended/ >> schema/ >> codec/ >> api/ >> plugin/ >> >> The deepest level is 5 and we'd concat levels into the names as we >> kind of do already. Here is the very last node, >> shared-ldap-extras-codec-plugin, as an example of the artifactId >> composition standard. >> >> Thoughts? > > Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. I don't see a benefit before or after M2. Just curious though why you want to do this after M2? If you have a preference we can cater to that. Regards, Alex
Re: [Shared] [SCM] Thinking about some hierarchy in shared.
On 2/28/11 4:50 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: Hi all, comments in line. Shared has grown somewhat and I think it will grow more as we tack on more protocol additions and functionality. I was thinking of using some project module hierarchy to try to establish some organization we can grow with. Here's what I was thinking: shared/ i18n/ util/ integ/ asn1/ api/ ber/ dsml/ parser/ engine/ ldap/ codec/ model/ schema/ schema-converter/ wouldn't it be better to make it a sub-module ? client-api/ codec-standalone/ all/ Shouldn't it be a separated module ? protocol/ mina/ extras/ aci/ sp/ trigger/ util/ archetype/ What is this module about ? control/ extended/ schema/ codec/ api/ plugin/ The deepest level is 5 and we'd concat levels into the names as we kind of do already. Here is the very last node, shared-ldap-extras-codec-plugin, as an example of the artifactId composition standard. Thoughts? Seems ok to me, more or less, but I think we should reorganize after M2. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
