[jbosstools-dev] Proposed New Github Component Chunks for JBoss Tools 4.0

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

On 24 Aug 2012, at 08:18, Rob Stryker <rstryker at redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm currently working on the plan to revert 'runtime' into a 'common' type plugin. It requires moving the handlers into the astools / seamtools components and then runtime can be low level. After that, it could be moved into common if people think it belongs there. 
> 
> So you may want to adjust your graph for that possibility. 

if we make it work without a big set of dependencies that is great then we could just move it into common module or at least into a 'common' super-module in context of git groupings.

/max

> 
> On 08/24/2012 11:22 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>> moving to jbosstools-dev
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Denis Golovin <dgolovin at exadel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Proposed New Github Component Chunks for JBoss Tools 4.0
>>> Date: 24 Aug 2012 02:56:58 GMT+02:00
>>> 
>>> Below is the diagram I've got by analyzing dependencies it let reduce amount of components to 13 without any changes to dependencies we have now ( transitive dependencies aren't shown like openshift->common, because openshift->as and as->common).
>>> 
>>> Opened questions:
>>> * openshift in as component?
>>> * forge and freemarker inside common?
>>> 
>>> If we would revert central and examples dependencies and let interested components inject examples and certain functionality into central (not sure if that possible) that would be logical to have them in common component
>>> 
>>> That would reduce 13 to 9 counting forge, freemarker and openshift  consumed by bigger components. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> # Current dependencies:
>>> 
>>> <Mail Attachment.png> 
>>> 
>>> # final git modules dependencies
>>> 
>>> <Mail Attachment.png>
>>> 
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 08/23/2012 12:00 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
>>>> As part of the planned migration to git [0] it's been suggested that we combine some of the existing components into larger groups [1] so that it's more manageable in terms of checking out sources and tagging/branching [2]. 
>>>> 
>>>> Because 25 is a large number, and 1 is a small number, and we need some happy compromise. 
>>>> 
>>>> Here's my proposal for how to divide the JBT 4.0 sources into 7 github repos (chunks), comprising 4 tiers of dependency. This is akin to the +0, +1, +2, +3 labels assigned to projects within the annual Eclipse release trains [3], used to define delivery times based on dependencies between projects. 
>>>> 
>>>> == TIER 0: no upstream JBoss.org chunks == 
>>>> 
>>>> Base = tests + common + usage 
>>>> 
>>>> == TIER 1: 1 upstream chunk, Base == 
>>>> 
>>>> AppServer = openshift + as + archives + jmx 
>>>>   -> depends on Base 
>>>> 
>>>> Hibernate/Birt/Freemarker = hibernate + birt + freemarker 
>>>>   -> depends on Base 
>>>> 
>>>> Visual Editing = vpe + xulrunner + gwt + struts + jsf + jst + cdi 
>>>>   -> depends on Base 
>>>> 
>>>> Web Services = WS + Forge 
>>>>   -> Depends on Base 
>>>> 
>>>> == TIER 2: 4 upstream chunks == 
>>>> 
>>>> Seam/Runtime = Seam + Runtime 
>>>>   -> depends on Hib + Vis + AppServer + Base 
>>>> 
>>>> == TIER 3: 5 upstream chunks == 
>>>> 
>>>> Central/Examples/Maven/Portlet = central + examples + maven + portlet 
>>>>   -> depends on Seam/Runtime + Hib + Vis + AppServer + Base 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not thrilled with the names of the chunks, as something like "Central/Examples/Maven/Portlet" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. If you have better names for the chunks, please suggest them. 
>>>> 
>>>> But regardless of name, I think the above separation of concerns, and the implied build sequence workflow makes a lot of sense. 
>>>> 
>>>> [0] http://tinyurl.com/git-migration-plan 
>>>> [1] http://ether-man.rhcloud.com/p/build.next 
>>>> [2] http://ether-man.rhcloud.com/p/jbosstools-2012-08-23 
>>>> [3] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Juno/Simultaneous_Release_Plan#Milestones_and_Release_Candidates - "These delivery times are based on the dependencies between projects. They are labeled +0, +1, +2, and +3, with +0 coming first (the Platform) and +3 coming last (EPP). Projects themselves decide if they are +0, +1, +2, or +3." 
>>>> 
>>>> If you have comments or suggestions regarding this migration plan, please post them here or in https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-12475. 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks! 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> 
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev