uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: UIMA Addons 2.3.1 RC 2
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:34:47 GMT
Re: the assembly -

The Apache default assembly (see
) they don't use <moduleSets> - they just use one file set and zip up whatever
is exported from SVN.

I think this would make sense for us, and solve this "flattening" issue that
happens when using moduleSets. 

But it has one issue:  it packages up everything in the svn export.  So this
would include those things we're not releasing. 

Two ways to fix this:

1) do that little bit of SVN reorg - create another "top level" SVN point for
the addons, and move just those projects we're releasing from sandbox, to that.

2) Use the ability of the assembly descriptor configuration to have
includes/excludes, and use those to subset the export to just what we need.  I
think this is more error-prone, though, and involves doing a special step when
release "tags" the project - you have to go into the tag and delete the things
not being released.

So I think approach 1) is better.


On 6/6/2011 5:09 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 6/6/2011 12:21 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>> Hello Marshall,
>> 2011/6/6 Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com>
>>> I svn "exported" the tag, and diff'ed it to the source-release.
>>> There are a few differences; although they are not required to be the same,
>>> it's
>>> simpler if they are (mostly).  This is because otherwise we have to
>>> carefully
>>> check and confirm that each thing which isn't the same, is OK.  Here's a
>>> list of
>>> the differences I found.
>>> 1) The SVN is organized differently for the osgi components - they are
>>> subdirectories in the addons-osgi-runtime folder, but in the source
>>> release,
>>> they appear at the top level.  Does the default behavior of the
>>> source-assembly
>>> change this nesting to a "flat" structure, or are we overriding the default
>>> somehow?
>> I didn't make any special configuration to do that so I assume it to be the
>> default behavior.
> I took a quick look - the default assembly for source-release is using the
> <moduleSet> technique to include all the sources.   There is one <moduleSet>
> and this would lose any hierarchy that may be present in how the files are
> stored in SVN.
> Since the layout is different, the build-from-sources (using the source-release)
> will fail I think.  (It already fails, but this is due to the
> AlchemyApiAnnotator not being found (due to renaming).
> I think this might be fixable by overriding - to have two <moduleSets> - one for
> everything that's going under addons-osgi-runtime folder, and another one for
> all the rest.  Each would have its own <outputDirectory> to direct the files to
> the right spot.  You can see the default descriptor being used that you would
> need to override, in
> build/uima-build-resources/src/main/resources/assemblies/multimodule-source-release.xml.

>>> 2) The alchemy-annotator is named two different ways:  in the
>>> source-release it
>>> is called "alchemy-annotator", but in the SVN export it is called
>>> "AlchemyAPIAnnotator"
>> I think this depends on the artifactId which is "alchemy-annotator" but the
>> directory is called AlchemyAPIAnnotator, I wasn't sure about how to handle
>> it as the "alchemy-annotator" artifactId came from the previous donated
>> project; however I  think it'd be good to change it to AlchemyAPIAnnotator.
> +1, because it has to match for the build-from sources to work, I think.
> -Marshall

View raw message