qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Schloming <rafa...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Eclipse project files for Java code
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:04:42 GMT
On 01/04/2011 11:59 AM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2011, at 15:06, Robert Godfrey wrote:
>> On 4 January 2011 15:36, Rafael Schloming <rafaels@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Personally I think jumping into major build system changes at this
>>> point is
>>> going to be a waste of time. I think past discussions have made clear
>>> that
>>> changing *how* the various components and artifacts are built is
>>> really just
>>> going to introduce more churn, and we have more basic issues to address
>>> around *what* components and artifacts are delivered and how the code is
>>> structured/divided into modules.
>
> However, actually making the change to a modern build system that forces
> modularity and componentisation would accomplish this, while also
> prompting discussion and showing up things that would otherwise be
> ignored. Basically, if someone attempted to implement the changes, that
> person would discover the cruft and unwanted dependencies and
> complexities, hypothetically, and would be in a position to report on or
> fix them.

How does maven force modularity? Does it require you to divide your 
project into a certain minimum number of chunks? ;)

>> +1 from me too. I'm not sure what we think the objective of moving to
>> maven
>> now would be. I agree with Emmanuel in the other thread that delivering
>> official artefacts for Maven repos is a sensible objective, but I don;t
>> think we need to/should move to Maven simply for that.
>>
>> As Rafi says above, I think we need a sensible discussion on what the
>> components and artefacts are (across the whole project, not just the Java
>> part) before jumping into tool selection/change. Related, (at least as
>> far
>> as maven is concerned), is the notion of (external) dependency
>> management -
>> however again I think we want to define our desired outcome before
>> selecting
>> the tool.
>>
>> I think the discussion on modules / components / artefacts is probably
>> one
>> of the more important things we have to do in 2011.
>
> -1 Mostly.
>
> Discussion is great. We seem to have agreed we need to have one of
> those. However, there is always a lot of inertia around changes to 'The
> Way We Have Always Done It' which is obvious from the above and other
> comments in this thread.
>
> I think the move to Maven is a no-brainer, this is 2011 and it should be
> done no matter what. We should also be using that work as a springboard
> for the discussion we need to have.

On a more serious note, we've built the whole project with maven 2.x 
already with roughly the same module structure we have now, and we were 
dissatisfied with the result and moved away from it. Given this, I don't 
think it's fair to say moving to Maven is a no-brainer, and it's 
certainly not reasonable to -1 discussion on the topic.

I also think Rob raises a good point. The whole Maven discussion is a 
very Java centered one, and we need to think about how we're going to 
deliver consistent artifacts across all the languages.

--Rafael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message