james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jSPF] cost of supporting offline builds
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:09:55 GMT
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> As you know I'm working on a branch to make jSPF a multimodule product.
> It took half an hour to prepare the modules and refactor the m2 descriptor
> so to have 2 modules correctly managed by m2 but it already took a lot of
> hours trying to make it build while offline.
>
> The "stage module" hack is too much against what m2 expects and it keep
> giving me issues whenever I try to build the project using a different m2
> sequence (package, install, site, site:stage, validate).
>
> Furthermore during the multimodule refactoring I had to remove the build.xml
> because it was no more working and no more mantained for the new structure.
>
> Now I think in the last 2 years I lost full days of my work trying to
> accomodate offline build capability using m2 hacks and this is now starting
> being frustrating.
>
> You can also add that this hack introduced new licensing issues because NOT
> A SINGLE pom published in maven repositories have a license header telling
> us what we can do with it.
>
> I'm happy with standard maven 2 and I don't care of offline builds so much
> to make this a blocking issue and I don't think that the build system should
> be given more importance than the produced artifacts.
> Maven has a dependency:go-offline target specifically created for people
> that want to go offline that take care of downloading and installing any
> needed artifact in the local repository. This is what maven supports. I
> would be happier if m2 bundled most standard plugins in its distribution and
> if m2 allowed packaging of a project including an offline repository, but
> this is not the case.
>
> That said I'd like to remove build.xml from jSPF because no one is
> mantaining it and I'd also like to remove offline build support from jSPF so
> I can start caring of code and output artifacts instead of this stuff.
>
> If people don't want to loose this then I'll close the branch
> "multimodule-proposal" because the amount of work needed to mantain
> ant+m2+m2-offline-support is too much in a multimodule product.
>
> Unless someone comes with good ideas about managing this stuff or take the
> responsibility to mantain that build system I'm going to start a VOTE to
> remove ant support and m2 offline build support from jSPF.

i'd probably approach this a little differently. i'm not sure a VOTE
is really necessary or indeed a good idea.

if anyone wants to volunteer to create and maintain an ant build
including offline support for jSPF then that's cool by me and i'd have
no problem keeping it in. if no one is willing to maintain an ant
build including offline support (and i'm not for this product) then it
should be removed. in either case, it's about individuals caring
enough about a feature to step up and maintain it, not about some vote
by the general community.

so i'd just post a email such as this and then ask if anyone cares
enough about this feature to volunteer to maintain it.

but this is just my 2 cents...

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message