[jbosstools-dev] [Soa-tools-list] JBTIS: Managment of External Components

Thu Aug 28 10:45:00 EDT 2014

> (adding jbosstools-dev to this since think it applies to both soa and
> core)
> 
> > I think this could also apply to the BPEL component as well, but I
> > don't remember if we create a feature around that in JBT or if we pull
> > the feature from Eclipse.
> 
> So i'm open to suggestions on how to improve this but lets not go change
> the TP process on a whim just yet.
> 
> We have recently got similar challenge in jbosstools core recently with
> Eclipse Thym which is receiving more often updates than in past.
> 
> For now we have added an exemption to allow TP updates to be smoother
> see
> https://github.com/jbosstools/jbosstools-devdoc/blob/master/building/target_platforms/target_platforms_updates.adoc#or-from-requester-only
> (basically if just update to existing TP units owned by a project we
> know/control the full TP process update is not required)
> 
> Now, back to the reason why we have them as TP entries as opposed to
> other components is a few:
> 
> a) to make sure we have a download.jboss.org mirror since eclipse
> mirrors are unreliable/slower (especially for people outside US)

Not sure how having this in the TP guarantees there is a mirror.  If developers are constrained to _only_ using dependencies located on a jboss.org downloads page, it shouldn't be an issue where it comes from.  Just because a developer is using a TP doesn't mean they can't add other repositories to their projects.  Furthermore, if a project depends on another component provided by JBoss (e.g. SAVARA depends on SwitchYard), those projects aren't in the TP and users must manage those dependencies themselves.

> 
> b) it is to ensure we are not just using the "master"/nightly builds of
> external dependencies

Same comment as above, just because it's in the TP doesn't mean projects can't circumvent it.

> 
> c) it is to ensure we do not drag in transitive dependencies from
> eclipse.org component updatesites which (at least in the past) have had
> lots of updatesite references to mix of p2 sites that resulted in
> duplicated dependencies and/or wrong/non-deterministic p2 resolution
> (because the updatessites
> was one of a or b)

Same comment as above.

> 
> d) the eclipse.org parts tend to participate in the eclipse release
> train - thus (for simplicity) using them via TP makes it easier to track

One of the subtleties that I think you've missed is that the BPMN2 modeller is a feature provided by JBTIS and not simply a dependency required by other features.  By moving the version of the BPMN2 modeller forward, the JBTIS site project was broken as the dependency set was not aligned.  If the BPMN2 modeller feature were included as part of the site project, instead of the TP project, everybody can move forward in lock step.  That said, you could also argue that the site project shouldn't have been updated until _all_ projects were ready, which did not occur in this case.  (I'd be happy with this solution as well.)

> 
> e) finally it is there to ensure we don't see a drift in multiple
> modules adding different versions into their dependency/build chain.
> (For core that is less likely since we have jbosstools parent pom to at
> least centralize where the various updatesites are located, but jbtis is
> much more spread out...hence a TP seem more relevant?)

I don't think this is a problem since this is all included via the JBTIS site build.  There is no way different dependency chains will be injected since the individual project sites should not be including references to other sites.  My understanding is that we prune this info when we create our mirrored sites, so we shouldn't be picking up anything extra when we build our product sites.  That said, if this is not the case, then it pretty much has to be in the TP to keep from polluting the product site (although, I think Nick has some special magic that prunes repository references from the generated site artifacts).

> 
> So that is the reasons...now ...does the bpmn2 and bpel parts receive
> many active updates that makes it non-feasible just including updates
> via the "normal" TP update process ?

That I can't answer, but I suspect the reason the BPMN2 modeller was bumped without proper coordination was because somebody in product management was asking for it.  The Eclipse BPMN2 modeller is part of our product suite, so I would expect that it's lifecycle will fall in line with our product lifecycles, meaning it will be treated similarly to JBoss provided features, which is another reason to treat it as a we treat JBoss components.  (This is pure speculation, by the way.)

> 
> ..and/or are there some hidden burdens in this that might not be visible
> ?

I don't think there's anything hidden here.  SwitchYard has been specifying a repository for BPMN2 modeller since we started requiring it.  This allows us to bump the version before it gets bumped in JBTIS, allowing both to move forward in tandem when everybody is ready to do so.  We're actually doing this now, since we started working on the update prior to the TP being updated, and it's working just fine.

> 
> /max
> 
> 
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >> +1!
> >>
> >> reducing the TP complexity is certainly a good idea - can we get a
> >> show of
> >> virtual hands who in IS component land actually pulls the BPMN2
> >> modeler
> >> from the JBTIS TP??
> >>
> >>  --paull
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Rob Cernich" <rcernich at redhat.com>
> >>> To: "soa-tools-list" <soa-tools-list at redhat.com>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 3:13:31 PM
> >>> Subject: [Soa-tools-list] JBTIS: Managment of External Components
> >>>
> >>> Hey all,
> >>>
> >>> The recent update of BPMN2 modeller caused me to think about the way
> >>> we
> >>> handle components that come from external sources.  To me, it makes
> >>> sense
> >>> if
> >>> we treat these components the same way we treat our internal
> >>> components.
> >>> If
> >>> we were to do that, these components would no longer be part of the
> >>> JBTIS
> >>> target platform and would instead be part of the features list
> >>> described in
> >>> the jbosstools and devstudio modules.
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion, this is a better way to treat these types of
> >>> dependencies as
> >>> they are components in their own right (i.e. no different than
> >>> SwitchYard
> >>> or
> >>> Teiid, e.g.).  If they are also dependencies used by other
> >>> components, they
> >>> would need to be managed by those other components using the same
> >>> mechanism
> >>> used to reference other internal component dependencies (e.g. SAVARA
> >>> and
> >>> SwitchYard).  (SwitchYard actually references the BPMN2 repository
> >>> directly
> >>> specifically to avoid circularities within the tp/repo chain; i.e.
> >>> SwitchYard does not require the TP be updated in order to update
> >>> BPMN2
> >>> modeller).
> >>>
> >>> Just an idea.
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Soa-tools-list mailing list
> >>> Soa-tools-list at redhat.com
> >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/soa-tools-list
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Soa-tools-list mailing list
> > Soa-tools-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/soa-tools-list
> 
> 
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen
> 