[resteasy-dev] RESTEasy and possible "community" contribution

Wed May 4 12:11:52 EDT 2016

> > Moving the discussion to the mailing list ++ adding few notes about the
> > project structure and TS.
> > 
> > Structure:
> > - why is there one module jaxrs in the root of repo -
> > https://github.com/resteasy/Resteasy ?
> 
> It's added by Bill but I forget the reason. I don't like it either :-) We can
> remove it now as JAX-RS is moved outside RESTEasy repo.
>
> > - there are too many modules (in root jaxrs module) from my perspective
> >   -- multi module project structure can affect build time
> >   -- find . | grep pom.xml | wc -l reports 226 pom.xml files
> The 'example' module contains all the Bill's book examples. We need to ask
> him for permission to move these away.

I think it can't cause any harm if it's just moved to separate repo under https://github.com/resteasy

Maybe a bit rude question - do we really need to ask Bill about everything ?

> >   -- find . | grep pom.xml | grep -v arquillian | grep -v exam | grep -v
> >   test | wc -l reports 58 pom.xml files
> > - not clear where is the real code and what is just add-odd like examples,
> > book stuff
> > - naming of modules in not in sync, some are starting resteasy-*, some do
> > not have such prefix
> > 
> > Commits:
> > - commit messages do not follow same/similar format - see
> > https://github.com/resteasy/Resteasy/commits/master
> >   -- I would expect jira id at the beginning of the commit message, it's
> >   there sometime but in different format - e.g. RESTEASY-1328 vs.
> >   [RESTEASY-1331]
> > - massive commit message like
> > https://github.com/resteasy/Resteasy/commit/fdd1f9f31edb894fa6f8684f2608224c39519e6c
> > - commit related to RESTEASY-1323 are really "fun"
> >   -- https://github.com/resteasy/Resteasy/pull/756/files
> >   -- one fix in code (4 lines removed) + two tests done in 7 commits :(
> >   -- these commits should have been squashed
> +1
> 
> > 
> > Versions:
> > - will leave this to Tomaz :)
> > 
> > TS:
> > - unit tests are mixed with integration tests
> >   -- integration tests should be in separate module
> >   -- tests should be running in different maven phases
> > - there are only few tests against WF
> > - such tests are not executed against latest WF, but mainly against WF 8
> > - I would like to see ARQ + WF10+ and get rid of tjws
> Get ridding of TJWS is not practical because it will make the test time
> unacceptable. But replacing them with undertow container would be great :-)

Do you have estimation how much time tjws saves ? And PRs are processed on external system (Travis atm) so I wouldn't be bothered if the TS runs for few minutes longer.

As proven by EAP QE internal resteasy testsuite, it's not revealing issues which could be eliminated before RESTEasy goes into the product.

For me Undertow container is not sufficient from product perspective, WF is needed.

> > 
> > 
> > EAP 7 situation for TS:
> > - we migrated upstream ts to use ARQ and run against EAP 7 and not tjws
> 
> > - we discovered half of reported issues thanks to this migrated TS, these
> > issues wouldn't be noticed bu community TS executed against tjws
> Totally removing TJWS is also not possible, because many users are using this
> 'internal' feature in their production env. We can't estimate how the impact
> will be.
> 
> We can try to remove TJWS for testing purposes in RESTEasy project itself.

+100

> But the RESTEasy TJWS module should be maintained as a feature.

I think it should be moved into separate repository with own release cycle. Not even sure if it should be under https://github.com/resteasy, but for now it would be sufficient ... I guess

> 
> >   -- 19 from 38 jiras -
> >   https://issues.jboss.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JBEAP%20AND%20issuetype%20%3D%20Bug%20AND%20resolution%20in%20%28Unresolved%2C%20Done%2C%20%22Out%20of%20Date%22%29%20AND%20component%20%3D%20REST
> > - we will keep this TS for 7.0.z
> > - we would like to consume & prod-patch upstream (ARQ + WF based) TS for
> > the future releases
> > 
> > Upstream and QE specific TS should somehow converge into a single one.
> +1

This can only happen if the TS runs against WF as EAP is based on WF.
ARQ here for some time and it is really preferred from our side.

Regards.
Rostislav

> > 
> > My feeling is that (upstream) TS should be a bit isolated from the rest to
> > make it easier for QE to test against products - like EAP.
> > Something similar what is in JBWS and maybe even beyond - no dependency on
> > parent to have deps clearly defined.
> > For JBWS we consume upstream ts, patch it little bit + use prod based
> > dependencies.
> > 
> > Cheers.
> > Rostislav
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Hey Alessio,
> >> 
> >> yes setting up mailing list or even better forums on developer.jboss.org
> >> would be great.
> >> 
> >> for the changes I had in mind from top of my head
> >> - restructure project to move it one folder up so we, get rid of "jaxrs"
> >> folder, but that can be done later
> >> - unify versions of jetty used for tests
> >> - make project build on various platforms and be able to release new
> >> version maven-release-plugin
> >> - get rid of tjws
> >> - get rid of book
> >> https://github.com/resteasy/Resteasy/tree/master/jaxrs/examples/oreilly-jaxrs-2.0-workbook
> >> - probably best to move it to different repo
> >> - think about examples, maybe move them to different repo or clean them up
> >> so build would work properly.
> >> 
> >> and lots of other ideas, but that would just be cleaning up the codebase
> >> so
> >> it would be easier to work from there.
> >> 
> >> But yes, lets talk about it next week, as I also have some stuff to finish
> >> this week.
> >> 
> >> --
> >> tomaz
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano at redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Rostislav, hi Tomaz,
> >>> thanks for the references. We'll have to go and parse the changes (and
> >>> also see what still applies and what would be out-of-date ;-) ).
> >>> Generally speaking, why not, let's listen to what "stage 0" tasks you
> >>> have
> >>> in mind. I'm very busy till the end of the week, but I hope to have time
> >>> to
> >>> spend on this next week. I'm still fixing few things with the team,
> >>> including having jboss mailing lists for the project.. if it makes sense
> >>> to
> >>> you, I would propose to have some discussion on the proposed tasks on a
> >>> dev
> >>> mailing list, ok?
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Alessio
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Il 28/04/2016 18:10, Rostislav Svoboda ha scritto:
> >>> 
> >>>> Hi Alessio.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Several months ago I spoke with Tomaz about RESTEasy and Tomaz's effort
> >>>> with project cleanup + version sync. For example
> >>>> https://github.com/resteasy/Resteasy/commit/1f95cefc716d88533551c282977aa9b0ba2a8f10
> >>>> was merged, probably some more ideas are waiting for sunlight in
> >>>> branches
> >>>> like https://github.com/ctomc/Resteasy/tree/build-cleanup
> >>>> 
> >>>> I pinged Tomaz today because of that and we spoke a bit about RESTEasy,
> >>>> Tomaz has some ideas for few "stage 0" tasks that should be done before
> >>>> anything else is going on. He [CCed to confirm that ;)] is also wiling
> >>>> to
> >>>> take few days to work on it if we agree on them being merged.
> >>>> 
> >>>> So here we go, discussion can begin. Hope RESTEasy project structure
> >>>> will
> >>>> be in good condition soon!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Cheers.
> >>>> Rostislav
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> Alessio Soldano
> >>> Web Service Lead, JBoss
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > resteasy-dev mailing list
> > resteasy-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
> 
> 