logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Missing commit messages for rev 1158186 1159577, 1159583
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:51:40 GMT
Yes, that's what I mean..would seem to simplify everything..

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier
<grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:

> > Pulling old Chainsaw and lf5 out of core would have probably made up for
> the
> > difference..but hey, that ship has sailed...maybe they could all be
> pulled
> > into extras (component and receivers?)
>
> You mean, move the code from component and receivers into the extras trunk?
> I am +1 on this - we could even kill the parent project then and get
> rid of three releases and make only one for all
>
>
>
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Curt,
> >>
> >> > On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> We've supported both building with either Ant or Maven for many
> years,
> >> >> though releases have been exclusively Maven for a while. The Ant
> build and
> >> >> test scripts were necessary to build and test on JDK 1.3 and earlier
> (which
> >> >> also required an earlier version of Ant, though I forget the specific
> >> >> version), but that is obviously less of a concern than it was long
> time ago.
> >> >> As far as I can tell, the Ant build works and isn't hurting anyone,
> so I'd
> >> >> be inclined to keep it around at least until there is a some
> discussion to
> >> >> remove Ant as a build environment.
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems you have missed my prewarning before I did the change:
> >> http://bit.ly/oUAy1R
> >>
> >> I saw commons testing on jdk 1.3:
> >>
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml
> >> (scroll down to the profiles)
> >>
> >> Then I would like to point you to the discussion on the JDK 1.3:
> >> http://bit.ly/nDMN7f
> >>
> >> Maybe we have supported Ant for many years. But companions are just a
> >> few classes and honstely, do we really expect a second release of
> >> them? I do not. My suggestion is and was to stip off everything which
> >> is not necessary. The ant build and the usage of ant within maven
> >> makes the pom.xml hard to read. The whole build is somewhat complex
> >> compared to other maven projects. I doubt the sense behind it - at
> >> least we are speaking of only a few files in each project.
> >>
> >> In addition, I can't open the project with JDK1.3 compiler settings in
> >> eclipse. It is simply to old. I have suggested to level at least to
> >> 1.4. Since companions has not been released so far, it should not
> >> cause any trouble. JDK 1.3 users are lost these days. For good
> >> reasons. If people still survive with JDK 1.3, they probably don't
> >> need companions. They need prayers, each day. ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > There were also a couple of other scenarios where it was handy to have
> >> > the Ant scripts around. The ant scripts allowed you to test without
> >> > rebuilding which was handy to check that the jar that you built on the
> >> > release platform worked on other platforms. I'm not sure how easily
> that can
> >> > be accomplished with Maven as I think it is going to want to rebuild
> the jar
> >> > first. Also, I recall some JVM (JRocket, Geronimo, gcj) not running
> Maven,
> >> > but able to build and test with Ant.
> >>
> >>
> >> Maven 2 and 3 is pretty stable and widely spread. Even at Commons
> >> Maven is the standard - a project were components need to work for all
> >> environments. I have not heard that JRocket and others cannot run
> >> Maven. I could not find any references when googling. Somebody said,
> >> JRockit + Maven has a poor performance. But anyway - it is not likely
> >> that companions users will download the sources and compile themself.
> >> Honestly I do not expect a single download except when Scott builds
> >> his Chainsaw. :-)
> >>
> >> In addition, mvn test works very well for me. Testing (at least to my
> >> knowledge) does not happen with a jar file, it happens on the compiled
> >> classes. Even when we need to build a jar on each test, no problem
> >> with 3 classes in a project.
> >>
> >> Summarizing, I don't think we need the features you outlined. We
> >> should make a quick release now. If we need a feature which is not
> >> provided by maven, we can put it into the code later. And as a second
> >> release is very unlikely...
> >>
> >> Would be nice to hear other voices on this one.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Christian
> >>
> >>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message