[EJB 3.0] - Re: Ejb3 sources in zipped form
by skajotde
"ALRubinger" wrote :
| You can't override logical arguments with preference. :)
|
Version madnes is my argument and I describe my way to improve/balance this situation ;) (from experience with work on granular libraries).
"ALRubinger" wrote :
| AS is an integration technology. To extend your view on a unified version number between the composite and all components would impose that Hibernate, AOP, MC, EJB3, Transactions, etc all have the same version number. And that imposes that they all have the same release schedule.
|
| In truth AS brings in components to form the whole. Each project is independently managed.
|
Please don't generalise. There are projects as like whole EJB3, dont libraries.
Indeed eg Hibernate have 4 subprojects (core, annotations, em, validator) but on link http://repository.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/ejb3/ there is 22 libraries ;)
In definition I would separate projects from libraries. Project has separate vesioning and release schedule but library not necessary.
You say maven releases will have independent releases - ok, so I think there should be additional release as zipped whole binary because it is project not library. Why EJB3 doesn't release zipped distribution like JBossWS, JBossAS, JBM (there is secret installer) ? We are in Linux World and Linux Users don't like when something try hide details. I'm not pro shell scripts but ejb3-installer imho should be in zipped distro and operates on files in this zip. Now I guess it downloads jars from maven repo ?
So my proposition to EJB3 binaries is zip (which always can be unpack) with structure:
ejb3-installer.jar
ejb3-installer-sources.jar (shell script can be read to see what to do, so sources installer are needed)
other jars of EJB3 without sources
I suspect you are maven fan and it is main reason to using automagic installer. I'm not so (I have many trouble with unpredicatble maven dependencies). When you download whole distribution there is closed space and you see what you get. With maven this space of dependecies are open and very fast grow (to 1GB maven repo) and I have many class conflicts because I dont see which library is using. Predicable closed dependencies is my prefered way to configure project and it is main reason I ask if there is enable one whole binary of EJB3. So user is not forced to maven when using EJB3.
Little digression and other question: What is way to get dependency to ejb3 in my maven project. I will have to list all libraries explicite, all 22 libraries ?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4204792#4204792
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4204792
17 years, 2 months
[EJB 3.0] - Re: Ejb3 sources in zipped form
by ALRubinger
"skajotde" wrote : Yes, there are true arguments but I very prefer treat these libraries as part of EJB3 Project. So when EJB3 Project change releases new version there is one number of version.
You can't override logical arguments with preference. :)
"skajotde" wrote : I'm afraid of versioning madness. I know that libraries have virtues but I think they shoudn't introduce additional complex level. Main product is JBossAS which is composed from few projects which you can simply download with sources and try (one version number). Now there will be hundreds libraries. Are you sure there is good solution ?
AS is an integration technology. To extend your view on a unified version number between the composite and all components would impose that Hibernate, AOP, MC, EJB3, Transactions, etc all have the same version number. And that imposes that they all have the same release schedule.
In truth AS brings in components to form the whole. Each project is independently managed.
"skajotde" wrote : Maybe tagging all trunk in svn should come back ?
We've been this route. It's not sustainable.
ie. Any one change in development will stall everyone else. What we have now is a solution where each project develops on their own, making releases when stable, then integrating these releases into AS. Much more stable.
S,
ALR
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4204785#4204785
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4204785
17 years, 2 months
[EJB 3.0] - Re: Ejb3 sources in zipped form
by skajotde
"ALRubinger" wrote : "skajotde" wrote : I think it is great that library can be used outside EJB3 and provides model and metatada. But main purposes of this libraries are be part of EJB3 product so I think it should be versioned in one way with one version number for releases of all libraries. So change in library-a should increase version in all libraries ?
|
| I have two arguments.
|
| 1) It takes time/resources away from dev to re-release projects with no changes.
|
| 2) If there's no difference in the code between 1.0.0 and 1.0.1, what does bumping the version number accomplish? You're labelling a new version, signalling that some change has been made.
|
|
Yes, there are true arguments but I very prefer treat these libraries as part of EJB3 Project. So when EJB3 Project change releases new version there is one number of version.
"ALRubinger" wrote :
| It seems like your concerns would be alleviated with another matrix showing all component versions that comprise an EJB3 release?
|
| S,
| ALR
|
I'm afraid of versioning madness. I know that libraries have virtues but I think they shoudn't introduce additional complex level. Main product is JBossAS which is composed from few projects which you can simply download with sources and try (one version number). Now there will be hundreds libraries. Are you sure there is good solution ?
Maybe tagging all trunk in svn should come back ?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4204784#4204784
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4204784
17 years, 2 months