This kind of situation is the main problem with the current Wonder structure of 
having everything on a single repo that produce a huge package. This create 
dead lock situation like this one where it is not possible to upgrade Wonder 
without upgrade ERJGroupsSynchronizer but we want to upgrade 
ERJGroupsSynchronizer without upgrading others without their consent or even 
knowledge.

With separate projects in independent repo, each of theses frameworks can be 
managed and versioned. So upgrading Wonder would not imply upgrading the 
ERJGroupsSynchronizer. 

The actual situation is almost required by the current ant build system, this 
is why I think the Gradle presentation was really eye opening. If we can switch 
to a modern build system that manage dependency, we will be able to break that 
dead lock cycle by creating many sub repository for each specialized frameworks 
or family of interdependent frameworks.

Is this make sense ?

Samuel


> Le 2015-05-01 à 09:13, Ken Anderson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 
> Paul,
> 
> These are the basic reasons I didn’t tackle this as well.  I can’t imagine 
> anyone would want to use the very old JGroups jar, but who knows?  Maybe we 
> need a way for someone to post feedback so that we can determine whether or 
> not it’s OK to upgrade.
> 
> Ken
> 
>> On May 1, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Paul Hoadley <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ted,
>> 
>> On 1 May 2015, at 10:05 pm, Theodore Petrosky <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>> don’t know if this is of interest but I created a pull request for this:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/wocommunity/wonder/pull/626 
>>> <https://github.com/wocommunity/wonder/pull/626>
>> Thanks for pointing this out.  I didn’t know this pull request was open.  It 
>> kind of helps to demonstrate, though, why I was reluctant to touch the 
>> framework directly myself—I simply don’t know enough about it.  What I got 
>> running on EC2, for example, uses the 3.4.0 JAR.  Does this matter?  I don’t 
>> know.  Does updating 2.6.8 to 3.4.0 (let alone 3.6.1) cause 
>> backward-compatibility issues?  I don’t know.  Mike Schrag wrote it, and 
>> he’s long gone—does anyone else understand it deeply?  I don’t know.
>> 
>> This also ties in nicely with the thread started by Jean Pierre Malrieu the 
>> other day.  A pull request like Ted’s doesn’t sit there for three months 
>> untouched because no one cares, it’s because no one _dares_.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Paul Hoadley
>> http://logicsquad.net/ <http://logicsquad.net/>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Webobjects-dev mailing list      ([email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/kenlists%40anderhome.com
>>  
>> <https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/kenlists%40anderhome.com>
>> 
>> This email sent to [email protected]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Webobjects-dev mailing list      ([email protected])
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/samuel%40samkar.com
> 
> This email sent to [email protected]

 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to [email protected]

Reply via email to