Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 16.11.01

[Sharan Foga]

+1

Thanks
Sharan

On 2016-11-21 19:51 (+0100), Jacopo Cappellato 
 wrote: 
> This is the vote thread to issue the first release from the branch
> "release16.11".
> 
> The name of the new release will be "Apache OFBiz 16.11.01".
> 
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
> 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
> 
> and are:
> 
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip: the actual release file
> 
> * KEYS: file with keys
> 
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> 
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.sha: hashes
> 
> Vote:
> 
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 16.11.01
> 
> [ -1] do not release
> 
> This vote will be open for 5 days.
> 
> For more details about this process please read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 
> You can download and test the zip file and its signature and hashes (for
> instructions on testing the signature see
> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Jacopo
> 

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 16.11.01

[Divesh Dutta]

+1.

Thanks
--
Divesh Dutta.


On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> This is the vote thread to issue the first release from the branch
> "release16.11".
>
> The name of the new release will be "Apache OFBiz 16.11.01".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip: the actual release file
>
> * KEYS: file with keys
>
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 16.11.01
>
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be open for 5 days.
>
> For more details about this process please read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> You can download and test the zip file and its signature and hashes (for
> instructions on testing the signature see
> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 16.11.01

[Mridul Pathak]

+1

--
Thanks & Regards,
Mridul Pathak


> On Nov 22, 2016, at 12:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato 
>  wrote:
> 
> This is the vote thread to issue the first release from the branch
> "release16.11".
> 
> The name of the new release will be "Apache OFBiz 16.11.01".
> 
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
> 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
> 
> and are:
> 
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip: the actual release file
> 
> * KEYS: file with keys
> 
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> 
> * apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.sha: hashes
> 
> Vote:
> 
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 16.11.01
> 
> [ -1] do not release
> 
> This vote will be open for 5 days.
> 
> For more details about this process please read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 
> You can download and test the zip file and its signature and hashes (for
> instructions on testing the signature see
> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Jacopo

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 16.11.01

[Jacques Le Roux]

MD5, Catalog/Order/ecommerce UI  (1st screens) and tests OK

+1

Jacques


Le 21/11/2016 à 19:51, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

This is the vote thread to issue the first release from the branch
"release16.11".

The name of the new release will be "Apache OFBiz 16.11.01".

The release files can be downloaded from here:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/

and are:

* apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip: the actual release file

* KEYS: file with keys

* apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.asc: the detached signature file

* apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.sha: hashes

Vote:

[ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 16.11.01

[ -1] do not release

This vote will be open for 5 days.

For more details about this process please read
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

You can download and test the zip file and its signature and hashes (for
instructions on testing the signature see
http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).

Kind Regards,

Jacopo

Re: svn commit: r1770539 - /ofbiz/trunk/build.gradle

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Valery,

I must say I did not try with a new plugin and this point was not obvious to me

Thanks for your contribution!

Jacques


Le 21/11/2016 à 23:20, Valery Ngah a écrit :

Hi Jacques,

compileOnly is used only in the add-on modules but because of the way the 
plugin framework is setup/designed you can’t directly use the “compileOnly” 
feature in the build.gradle file of the module. It evaluates to an error if its 
being used directly.

Two ways I see how this can be resolved either:
1. The patch already submitted or
2. Enable all default dependencies types in the add-on modules which I think is 
the best approach because here we won’t be limiting a user to a feature subset 
of what gradle actually offers.

The Ofbiz platform by default can be restricted to compile and runtime 
dependencies but a plugin developer should not be limit to these two in my 
opinion.

Thanks,
--Valery


On 11/21/16, 00:21, "Jacques Le Roux"  wrote:

 Hi Valery,
 
 We don't need to have compileOnly in the main build.gradle file if it's only used in "add-on modules" (we call them plugins). You can use the local

 build.gradle (in the plugin, aka component) for that.
 
 I'm not quite sure yet but it seems we have no need of compileOnly OOTB (yet). I'll double check and revert if it's the case. I will though then

 change the framework/resources/templates/build.gradle file to suggest the 
possibility of compileOnly and introducde pluginLibsCompile in the main
 build.gradle . Before your Jira issue I was not aware of this and related 
options.
 
 Thanks
 
 Jacques
 
 
 Le 20/11/2016 à 23:53, Valery Ngah a écrit :

 > Hi Jacques, hi Taher,
 >
 > It’s true that compile and runtime are the most used types of 
dependencies but that doesn’t mean that add-on modules won’t require compileOnly 
dependencies.
 >
 > Take for example com.google.code.findbugs:jsr305 (JSR 305) which 
provides a set of annotations to assist defect detection tools. These annotations 
are only required during development, compile time and other defect detection 
tools.  I use IntelliJ for development and they do have an OOTB support for these 
annotations.
 >
 > This is just one example where I needed compileOnly dependency.
 >
 > If there is a better way to deal with this in Ofbiz am all ears.
 >
 >
 > --Valery
 >
 > On 11/20/16, 02:25, "Jacques Le Roux"  
wrote:
 >
 >  Yes it might be the case indeed.
 >
 >  I looked for possible compileOnly libs before committing. I must 
say I did not find anyone clearly.
 >
 >  I thought about the Junit ones, but that would be testCompileOnly 
(needed I guess) and I found some use case in no test code but we can maybe change
 >  that.
 >
 >  I want also to check javax.servlet:servlet-api
 >
 >  Anyway before reverting we can wait a bit to see if Valery has done 
some work for OOTB libs (as I asked few days ago). Else I don't understand why he
 >  would want to push that instead of only using it in his own 
component/s.
 >
 >  Jacques
 >
 >
 >  Le 20/11/2016 à 11:00, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
 >  > I don't think we currently have any compileOnly libs, and I would 
think we
 >  > would rarely ever need those.
 >  >
 >  > So, I recommend removing them, but I also recommend not to 
introduce
 >  > anything unless it is "used" or "will very likely be used soon" 
(the YAGNI
 >  > principle)
 >  >
 >  > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
 >  > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
 >  >
 >  >> Hi Taher,
 >  >>
 >  >> I was wondering if this could not be helpful to OOTB minimise the
 >  >> dependencies. I must say I have still to check which libs is 
compile only,
 >  >> any ideas?
 >  >>
 >  >> Jacques
 >  >>
 >  >>
 >  >>
 >  >> Le 20/11/2016 à 10:28, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
 >  >>
 >  >>> Hi Jacques,
 >  >>>
 >  >>> I'm not sure this is a very good idea. Gradle supports many 
other types of
 >  >>> dependencies (compile, compileOnly, testCompile, 
testCompileOnly,
 >  >>> compileClasspath, testRuntime, etc ...)
 >  >>>
 >  >>> I think the two most common uses are compile and runtime (both 
needed and
 >  >>> used). Other kinds should be declared in build.gradle for 
plugins only
 >  >>> when
 >  >>> a need arises, otherwise this is just code bloat. I would 
rather only add
 >  >>> things when we actually need them.
 >  >>>
 >  >>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:05 PM,  wrote:
 >  >>>
 >  >>> Author: jleroux
 >  

Re: svn commit: r1770539 - /ofbiz/trunk/build.gradle

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Valery, Taher,

I agree with Taher's proposition to complete with all options.

Jacques


Le 21/11/2016 à 23:29, Valery Ngah a écrit :

Hi Taher,


If you want to always use the library for your development by declaring
compileOnly or testCompileOnly then my alternative suggestion is to
   actually modify our build script to include by default all the dependency
types declared in here -> https://docs.gradle.org/

current/userguide/java_plugin.html#sec:java_plugin_and_dependency_management.
I am suggesting that so that we have a root solution that covers all such
corner cases in the future.

That’s actually a better approach I will submit a patch for this later.

Thanks,


On 11/21/16, 00:29, "Taher Alkhateeb"  wrote:

 Hi Valery,
 
 Thank you for your feedback which is highly appreciated. I have to say that

 I'm quite happy to get feedback on the plugin system which is exactly what
 we need to continue to improve it.
 
 So if I may ask, my understanding is that you want to use this library only

 during development correct? If yes why not just declare as compile and then
 comment it out before shipping? Also from what I read about it and your
 description it seems to be actually testCompileOnly to be used in unit
 tests, wouldn't that be more appropriate for you? Does library just work
 during compile time and spit out errors? or does it run some tests?
 
 If you want to always use the library for your development by declaring

 compileOnly or testCompileOnly then my alternative suggestion is to
 actually modify our build script to include by default all the dependency
 types declared in here -> https://docs.gradle.org/
 
current/userguide/java_plugin.html#sec:java_plugin_and_dependency_management.
 I am suggesting that so that we have a root solution that covers all such
 corner cases in the future.
 
 
 On Nov 21, 2016 1:53 AM, "Valery Ngah"  wrote:
 
 > Hi Jacques, hi Taher,

 >
 > It’s true that compile and runtime are the most used types of 
dependencies
 > but that doesn’t mean that add-on modules won’t require compileOnly
 > dependencies.
 >
 > Take for example com.google.code.findbugs:jsr305 (JSR 305) which provides
 > a set of annotations to assist defect detection tools. These annotations
 > are only required during development, compile time and other defect
 > detection tools.  I use IntelliJ for development and they do have an OOTB
 > support for these annotations.
 >
 > This is just one example where I needed compileOnly dependency.
 >
 > If there is a better way to deal with this in Ofbiz am all ears.
 >
 >
 > --Valery
 >
 > On 11/20/16, 02:25, "Jacques Le Roux" 
 > wrote:
 >
 > Yes it might be the case indeed.
 >
 > I looked for possible compileOnly libs before committing. I must say 
I
 > did not find anyone clearly.
 >
 > I thought about the Junit ones, but that would be testCompileOnly
 > (needed I guess) and I found some use case in no test code but we can 
maybe
 > change
 > that.
 >
 > I want also to check javax.servlet:servlet-api
 >
 > Anyway before reverting we can wait a bit to see if Valery has done
 > some work for OOTB libs (as I asked few days ago). Else I don't 
understand
 > why he
 > would want to push that instead of only using it in his own
 > component/s.
 >
 > Jacques
 >
 >
 > Le 20/11/2016 à 11:00, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
 > > I don't think we currently have any compileOnly libs, and I would
 > think we
 > > would rarely ever need those.
 > >
 > > So, I recommend removing them, but I also recommend not to 
introduce
 > > anything unless it is "used" or "will very likely be used soon" 
(the
 > YAGNI
 > > principle)
 > >
 > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
 > > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
 > >
 > >> Hi Taher,
 > >>
 > >> I was wondering if this could not be helpful to OOTB minimise the
 > >> dependencies. I must say I have still to check which libs is
 > compile only,
 > >> any ideas?
 > >>
 > >> Jacques
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> Le 20/11/2016 à 10:28, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
 > >>
 > >>> Hi Jacques,
 > >>>
 > >>> I'm not sure this is a very good idea. Gradle supports many other
 > types of
 > >>> dependencies (compile, compileOnly, testCompile, testCompileOnly,
 > >>> compileClasspath, testRuntime, etc ...)
 > >>>
 > >>> I think the two most common uses are compile and runtime (both
   

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 16.11.01

[gil portenseigne]

+1

Tests successful

Gil


On 21/11/2016 19:51, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

This is the vote thread to issue the first release from the branch
"release16.11".

The name of the new release will be "Apache OFBiz 16.11.01".

The release files can be downloaded from here:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/

and are:

* apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip: the actual release file

* KEYS: file with keys

* apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.asc: the detached signature file

* apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-16.11.01.zip.sha: hashes

Vote:

[ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 16.11.01

[ -1] do not release

This vote will be open for 5 days.

For more details about this process please read
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

You can download and test the zip file and its signature and hashes (for
instructions on testing the signature see
http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).

Kind Regards,

Jacopo