Speaking for myself, I like the idea (alot!) of feeding into the maven repository. But I don't see us moving to maven for builds until hadoop does. Ivy sounds great to me. I believe that is what hadoop is planning to do.
Ben -----Original Message----- From: Fernando Padilla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 09:37 PM Pacific Standard Time To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: ZooKeeper Roadmap - 3.1.0 and beyond. I will summarize my vote by echoing what Jake said: "So while I would say it is never a bad decision to move to maven, it isn't always a needed decision." Though Maven hasn't won over everyone yet builds, the idea of a central Maven Repository for dependency distribution and management has proven itself and is a very solid and very useful system. So in the end of day, use Maven or Ant+Ivy, or whatever, but I vote that you have to support the central Maven Repository appropriately. So it sounds like we're in agreement ( at lease the few in this discussion ). But have we heard from the actual developers? What are their preferences or plans? Or would they like patches? Jake Thompson wrote: > Hi Hiram, > I actually am just a user of zookeeper, I am not a "member" as of yet. I am > also a user of maven and ant and have been using both for many years. > > So while I would say it is never a bad decision to move to maven, it isn't > always a needed decision. > > A standard build structure makes sense if you were building zookeeper > yourself, but I don't beleive you would be doing that. So that leaves the > creation and building of your own projects like an ear, war, JBI, etc. The > problem with zookeeper is that there is no required project structure. > There is no zar that is to say. > > I personally have a mavenized war project that I am using zookeeper in and I > also have a hand rolled CL java program that uses it and is build with ant. > For both of these I just needed to copy one jar into my lib. > As far as dependency management, since zookeeper is so simple the only > requirement is log4j, not really needing any complex dependency tools there. > > As far as modularity, again I see zookeeper being part of larger modules, so > I don't know if we can draw a common modular zookeeper application > structure. > > Maven is a great tool and can help alot, but I personally don't see it as > synonymous with modern java development. > > -Jake > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> It would help new developers work with your project. Maven provides a >> a broad set of tools that lots of java developers have come to expect >> out of a build system. Incorporating those tools manually into an Ant >> based build would be very time consuming and make the build complex to >> maintain. >> >> For example, in addition the standard build and package aspects of >> build, folks expect the build system to: >> - support generating the IDE integration files (Idea, eclipse, etc.). >> - Run static analysis tools like find bugs >> - Run test coverage reports >> - Deployment to central servers >> - License Checking >> - Artifact signing >> >> And most importantly, they want a standard way of doing all that. >> >> Maven also encourages modularity in the architecture by making it easy >> build multiple modules/jar files and easily describing the >> dependencies between then. And once you go modular, you will see how >> folks start contributing alternative implementations of existing >> modules. Copying a module and it's build setup is easy to do with >> maven.. A bit harder with something like ant since it's kinda >> monolithic. >> >> Ant was a great tool so if you guys want to stick to your guns that's >> cool. But in this day and age, using a ant based open source project >> is kinda like it was when we used make several years back to build >> java projects. Works fine, but dated. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Jake Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> It is quiet around here, I am new, could you please explain why you feel >> a >>> Maven build structure is needed? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jake >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Anyone out there? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Congrats on the release. Now that has been completed, I'd like to see >>>>> if you guys are willing to revisit the issue of a maven based build. >>>>> If yes, I'd be happy to assist making that happen. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Hiram >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>>>>> Our first official Apache release has shipped and I'm already looking >>>>>> forward to 3.1.0. ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> In particular I believe we should look at the following for 3.1.0: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) there are a number of issues that we're targeted to 3.1.0 during >> the >>>>>> 3.0.0 cycle. We need to review and address these. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) system test. During 3.0.0 we made significant improvements to our >>>> test >>>>>> environment. However we still lack a large(r) scale system test >>>> environment. >>>>>> It would be great if we could simulate large scale use over 10s or >> 100s >>>> of >>>>>> machines (ensemble + clients). We need some sort of framework for >> this, >>>> and >>>>>> of course tests. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) operations documentation. In general docs were greatly improved in >>>> 3.x >>>>>> over 2.x. One area we are still lacking is operations docs for >>>>>> design/management of a ZK cluster. >>>>>> see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-160 >>>>>> >>>>>> 4) JMX. Documentation needs to be written & the code >> reviewed/improved. >>>>>> Moving to Java6 should (afaik) allow us to take advantage of improved >>>> JMX >>>>>> spec not available in 5. We should also consider making JMX the >> default >>>>>> rather than optional (ie you get JMX by default when ZK server is >>>> started). >>>>>> We need to ensure that ops can monitor/admin ZK using JMX. >>>>>> >>>>>> 5) (begin) multi-tenancy support. A number of users have expressed >>>> interest >>>>>> in being able to deploy ZK as a service in a cloud. Multi-tenancy >>>> support >>>>>> would be a huge benefit (quota, qos, namespace partitioning of nodes, >>>>>> billing, etc...) >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course ZooKeeper is open to submissions in that aren't on this >> list. >>>> If >>>>>> you have any suggestions please feel free to enter a JIRA or submit a >>>> patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Additionally I'd like to see us move to an 8 week release cycle. I've >>>>>> updated the JIRA version list to reflect this. Due to the holiday >> season >>>>>> approaching I've listed 3.1.0 with a ship date of Jan 19th. (see the >>>> roadmap >>>>>> on the JIRA). >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have any questions/comments please reply to this email. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrick >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Hiram >>>>> >>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com >>>>> >>>>> Open Source SOA >>>>> http://open.iona.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Hiram >>>> >>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com >>>> >>>> Open Source SOA >>>> http://open.iona.com >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Hiram >> >> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com >> >> Open Source SOA >> http://open.iona.com >> >
