qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Kennedy <andrewinternatio...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Eclipse project files for Java code
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:47:29 GMT
On 4 Jan 2011, at 18:07, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> On 4 January 2011 16:59, Andrew Kennedy  
> <andrewinternational@gmail.com>wrote:
>> On 4 Jan 2011, at 15:06, Robert Godfrey wrote:
>>> On 4 January 2011 15:36, Rafael Schloming <rafaels@redhat.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> [...] 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,
> This doesn't follow.  The existing "modules" have survived  
> transition from
> ant to maven and back to ant again...  So the use of ant or maven  
> (or indeed
> make) doesn't guarantee modularity, or indeed help you to define  
> *useful*
> modules.

Half agree here. I do think the Maven dependency management (or Ivy  
bor whatever) is a step forward and would help to enforce some rigour  
i our Java component structure.

>> 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.
>>> +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.

Agree again, this is an excellent objective and should be part of the  
list bof things we want to accomplish in 0.10 no matter what build  
system is used.

>>> I think the discussion on modules / components / artefacts is  
>>> probably one
>>> of the more important things we have to do in 2011.

>> -1 Mostly.

This is for the disregarding of Maven only. See below.

>> 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  
>> [...]
> But it's *not* the way we've always done it.
> We've done maven before.
> It didn't help.

I looked at the old JIRAs related to Maven before I started thinking  
about this, and I felt that many of these issues were now solved or  
soluble with newer releases of Maven 2.

> In fact there were a lot of issues with maven at the time...   
> however that's
> not really the point.  Even if all the issues with maven have  
> subsequently
> been solved, that doesn't help *us* structure and manage our  
> project (by
> which I mean the whole of Qpid, not just Java) in a sensible way.

True, I'm thinking in a Java-centric way here, and freely admit i  
don't have any knowledge of the C++ structure and minimal python  

>> 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.
> I'm not saying -1 to Maven necessarily, but I'm asking what  
> criteria we're
> using to make the decision.  Given that we have had experience of  
> maven2 in
> the project before, and it didn't address (in itself) what I  
> consider to be
> our issues around build, release, modularisation, etc.  Changing  
> the tooling
> when we aren't clear what we want the end result to be seems an odd  
> way to
> go about things.

Agree. I think we do need to be clear what we want the end result to  
be. On initial investigation, I think that Maven makes (some) of the  
desired goals simpler.

> I would also add that doing things without thinking and talking  
> about them
> first (while perhaps something I am notorious for) is not  
> necessarily the
> best way to go about things, so -1'ing discussion seems a little  
> odd ;-)

Sorry, no, that's not what I meant... I Meant -1 on the no Maven.  
Like I said, discussion is *good* and I was hoping that the moving to  
Maven would promote said discussion.

-- andrew d kennedy ? do not fold, bend, spindle, or mutilate ;
-- http://grkvlt.blogspot.com/ ? edinburgh : +44 7582 293 255 ;

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

View raw message