portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: proposal for war assembly reorganization
Date Sun, 19 Nov 2006 03:23:32 GMT
David Jencks,

first of all, thanks very much for stepped up to help out with our current build mess (which
I think it really is).
And I honestly hope your proposed solution is the way to go.

That said, I can't yet give a +1 before two major issues are addressed which I'll point out
If however we can solve those (and I'm definitely willing to help out as far as I can), I'm
all for it.

See for further details below.

Regards, Ate

David Sean Taylor wrote:
> David Jencks wrote:
>> Currently I'm using a maven plugin from geronimo that jason dillon
>> wrote to help with the resource bundles.  If people don't like this
>> geronimo dependency we can simple copy the plugin into jetspeed or
>> see if we can get it into m2.
>> I have some other questions about the build...
>> Is the maven 1 stuff still used? Can I delete it? Can I reorganize
> The Maven-1 build is still used in a lot of custom projects
Very true, especially by using the jetspeed maven-plugin genapp functionality.
Randy went through very much pain to provide a similar solution with our maven-archetypes.

To be honest, I never really worked with m2 and our maven-archetypes as all my clients were
using to maven-plugin genapp solution so I had (and partly still 
have) to support them with that.
So, before we can drop the Maven-1 support I think we *must* provide an upgrade path and *very*
detailed documentation how current Maven-1 users can migrate 
*without losing functionality*.

I did check out your new assembly proposal, and I agree it seems like a great simplification.
But (note: I'm not exactly a m2 guru to say the least, so please forgive my ignorance), can
this solution easily be extended to provide the features we have now 
  in the maven-plugin and the m2 maven-archetypes?

For me, being able to streamline the build of Jetspeed-2 for ourselves as core developers
isn't so much the goal here.
The real target must be the end users needing an easy build setup for their own custom portal
and be able to merge in their own code and resources, components 
web applications as well as replace default features from jetspeed.
Our current Maven-1 solution through the maven-plugin certainly isn't the best, simple or
without its problems, but it does provide an easily to be build and 
customizable portal solution for my clients (Jelly code is awkward, but not difficult and
powerful enough for most purposes).
I'm not willing to drop that quickly without a proper alternative.

> I actually still use it to build Jetspeed. Steve runs the Maven-2, so I 
> try to work off of Maven-1, that way we don't both have to test with 
> both builds. In all honesty I am sick of having two builds
> We were planning on removing it after the 2.1 release
> If you want to remove it now, I think it should be voted on
> It appears that your patch, by changing the directory structures, would 
> actually break the Maven-1 builds. Or we would have to adjust the 
> Maven-1 build for the new directory structures in the M1 builds and 
> plugin. I don't want to volunteer for doing that, prefer to just kill 
> the M1 build
I agree. If we can provide a feature complete m2 solution, I'm all for killing Maven-1.

>> the modules to standard m2 dir structure? (such as src/main/java
>> instead of src/java) Can I rename the modules so they match the
>> artifactId?  This lets you remove a bunch of cruft from the poms.
> We need to vote on the directory restructuring
> As far as Im concerned, its also a vote on continuing M1 support
Agreed again. I've no problem with the directory restructuring when we can drop m1 support.

> Could you give me an example of where the modules don't match the 
> artifactId?
>> Where did the dojo.zip come from?  It's not the same as the dojo zip
>> file we found for geronimo....
> We stay current with the latest Dojo official releases
> So we just download it from there, and bundle it up ourselves
> Im going to need sometime to review all of this, by Monday the latest. 
> Im all for making the build simpler and more in line with the "Maven-2 
> way", so you have my support on this effort, and we definitely value 
> your expertise with Maven-2. We are working on new features in the Maven 
> plugin for the database population, and I was dreading having to update 
> both Maven-1 and Maven-2 builds.
> I just want to make sure that other people in the community also back 
> it. Its about time we make that big decision to kill the Maven-1 build.
I will fully support it if and when:
a) the solution can be extended to properly replace our maven-plugin / maven-archetypes solution
for customized portal builds and deployments
b) we have clear and complete migration documentation for our maven-1 (and maven-2) users

BTW: I know our current documentation for using the maven-plugin, nor the maven-archetypes
(see http://wiki.apache.org/portals/Jetspeed2/Maven2BuildSupport ) 
certainly isn't perfect at all either. But I really think we have to do (much) better when
we drop maven-1, otherwise its going to kill our community support.

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

View raw message