Re: [jboss-dev] Include Web Beans RI in next JBoss 5 release
Comments inline.
Jason T. Greene wrote:
Carlo de Wolf wrote:
> That's the reason why we're working on the EJB3 plugin. It works in a
> similar manner to the WB RI update. Use ant to patch AS.
>
> In future this is going to be handled by the patching functionality of
> the Profile Service. It'll be backed up by a Maven repository where
> it'll download the version of a bundle/package specified by the
> administrator.
Ugh, I really hope we reconsider integrating maven's buggy codebase into
AS.
No patch installer has to depend upon Maven itself - Carlo was referring
to our 3rdparty repo used to house binaries brought into AS.
Further this kind of thing really only seems useful
for applying simple support patches, not so much for feature upgrades.
I disagree with you pretty infrequently; this is one of those times.
Feature / module upgrades allow each project a release cycle independent
of AS.
Envision AS as nothing more than a base runtime which supports arbitrary
stuff to be deployed into it. Some upgrade/install mechanism should be
able to say:
"Install EJB3"
...and then the installer kicks in to:
* Resolve all dependencies (+transitive)
* Ensure compatibility
* Download all dependencies (from Maven2 repo)
* Install all dependencies (libraries and configs)
* Download and install EJB3
Same for update.
It's perfectly fine for a component library to do their own AS
upgrade,
Kinda, but not really. Because if the upgrade isn't
backwards-compatible with all of the projects which depend upon it, or
if the library demands upgrades to its own dependencies, things get ugly
quick.
So for a component library to upgrade itself, all of its dependencies
must be able to do the same. Hence the recursive process I outlined
above, and Carlo's explained a bit before (I don't have written record
of where).
however that doesn't escape the need for frequent AS releases.
Agree.
Also,
updating a minor AS rev is simpler for users to manage, and all of the
components are actually tested together.
Also agree.
Of course, the second that users start adding/changing their configs,
they have to merge their stuff with the new updates coming in, and
that's not always intuitive. So a user will *think* they have 5.0.1,
but in actuality have a config that more resembles 5.0.0...
S,
ALR
--
Andrew Lee Rubinger
Sr. Software Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat, Inc.
http://exitcondition.alrubinger.com