[jbosstools-dev] Included features considered harmful (AS, BPEL, jBPM & JSF, please read)

[Nick Boldt]

Related problem:

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-11373

On 03/21/2012 11:41 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
> Rob:
>
> You could also look at the update site from Beta1 as a zip, and compare
> that to the update site (or zip) you create locally after applying your
> fixes to your features. I heartily recommend using Beyond Compare (from
> scootersoftware.com) for doing these comparisons as it can be configured
> to ignore dates/times and simply compare file sizes, then file contents.
> It can also recurse into zips and jars and compare those contents too.
> It's diff on steroids - even does image compares and 3-way compares.
>
> If anything is missing, you have a potential problem. However, as long
> as the no-longer-included stuff can be found on an upstream composite
> site [1] and can be aggregated [2], [3] then you should be fine.
>
> [1] http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/builds/staging/_composite_/trunk/
> [2] http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/updates/nightly/core/trunk/
> [3] http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/updates/webtools/indigo/
>
> Because AS Tools gets aggregated into TWO sites -- the main JBT Core
> site [2] and the smaller Webtools site (used by WTP) [3], you need to
> build both of these locally and test installing from them to ensure you
> get everything you expect.
>
> To build locally, look in this pom.xml [4] for instructions.
>
> [4] http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbosstools/trunk/build/aggregate/pom.xml
>
> cd ~/trunk/build/aggregate; mvn clean install -f webtools-site/pom.xml
>
>
> On 03/21/2012 05:00 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Rob Stryker wrote:
>>
>>> I'm ASTools component lead, but I didn't set up the dependencies /
>>> plugins initially... I just continued whatever practice was in place
>>> without thinking much on it. I don't know of any issues that require
>>> inclusion in this component, and as far as I know it's always been
>>> this way.
>>
>> in the past we did not have fully mirrored eclipse dependencies - we
>> do now and thus its not that much required anymore to have the
>> "inclusion" specified.
>>
>>> It seems dependency should be fine, but I'll need to test post-build
>>> to ensure nothing is broken. Honestly I'm not even sure how to test
>>> aside from a normal smoke test, since I'm uncertain of what kind of
>>> use cases might break from this change. I'm not very familiar on the
>>> exact osgi / eclipse rules governing this.
>>>
>>> Are there any pro-tips on what use cases might be broken by this?
>>
>> it affects the generated updatesite zip and how p2 behaves when
>> installing from updatesite.
>>
>> so check installation from those two and see if there are differences
>> when using them (i.e. disable "check other sites" to be sure you
>> aren't just seeing eclipse fetching the dependencies from elsewhere)
>>
>> /max
>>
>>>
>>> On 03/20/2012 07:19 PM, Mickael Istria wrote:
>>>> On 03/20/2012 11:33 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>>>> either open a jira for these modules with a patch or send the
>>>>> fisheye changeset here when done so its easy to look at.
>>>> Issue created. If you are concerned, please watch it:
>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-11358
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mickael Istria
>>>> Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat
>>>> My blog - My Tweets
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>

-- 
Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
http://nick.divbyzero.com