[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: ejb3x mavenized

[bill.burke@jboss.com]

I've run into problems with the "mavenization" of the jbossas project.  Over the past few months, EJB3 code just breaks without any changes to our codebase.  You go to debug these problems and you find the module in question is party of repository.jboss.com and usually no access to the source that built that binary.  This leads me to checking out that module and hoping and praying the HEAD of that submodule is in synch with the binary (many times it isn't).  IIRC, JBoss 2.0 used to be broken out in much the same way that we're moving to now.  We had many of the same problems and, in JBoss 3.0 decided to move to a build system that built every subproject together into one checkout.

A project like EJB3 sees these problems more often than other projects because EJB, at its core, is an integration project of many different technologies within JBoss.  BTW, this is one of the reasons why I want to leave the EJB project.  I'm sick of other projects breaking my code and me having to clean up after them.

IMO, if we're going to mavenize every JBoss project and break it up into its own build and its binary stuffed into repository.jboss.com, we need to start getting much stricter on what we allow to be checked into head.  If you're going to rev jbossas/build-thirdparty for your project, you should be required to test any modules that are dependent on your project.  The problem with this, is that nobody does a good job of keeping their junit tests passing.  Since there is no good baseline to measure against, any rule of this type would make it very difficult to determine if your thirdparty checkin to repository.jboss.com causes any new instability.

What we really need to get to is a HEAD where all unit tests pass.  If somebody checks in anything anywhere that causes a testsuite regression then HEAD should be frozen from *ALL* commits unti:

a) The eroneous commit is rolled back
b) the culprit fixes any problems.

IMO, we're just too big right now to allow the current development process to proceed as it is going.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3991033#3991033

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3991033