juneau-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter Haumer" <phau...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Quick update on status of code.
Date Mon, 08 Aug 2016 20:55:10 GMT

Yes, I understood that, but I was more referring to John's earlier comment
of "it does not add up".  The current assumption is one project for each
module and vice versa. If that is questioned then I would drive the
decision making process around what we want to support and then decide
based on that what the best way of structuring the code is. I want to avoid
decision making a la "others do it like that" if the cases are not directly
comparable.


Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

______________________________________________________________

PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
IBM zSystems Software
______________________________________________________________



From:	James Bognar <james.bognar@salesforce.com>
To:	dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org
Date:	08/08/2016 01:48 PM
Subject:	Re: Quick update on status of code.



Hi Peter,

I think you may misunderstand.  When you load the repo into your workspace,
you get the exact same projects as before PLUS a root-level project called
"juneau-root".  Nothing has changed structurally.  The only difference is
that the releng POM will be moved to the project root, and you can access
it through the root-level project.  The releng workspace can probably go
away eventually.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Peter Haumer <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Perhaps we should write down what the requirements are. As John points
out
> we perhaps do not need many projects. So far I was assuming that we want
to
> be able to build the core project on its own as well as the ability to
> build as pojo jar as well as OSGi plugins. Are these assumption really
> still valid? Would it make sense to put everything into one Eclipse
project
> and build everything as one big jar?
>
> Figuring out what the requirements are will help us to determine whether
> me make decisions to address these or just because we follow some
> convention. Would it make sense to organize a short call?
>
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Peter Haumer.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
> IBM zSystems Software
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for James Bognar ---08/08/2016 12:56:02
> PM---I was able to put a .project file in the root. Now when you]James
> Bognar ---08/08/2016 12:56:02 PM---I was able to put a .project file in
the
> root. Now when you load your workspace, you'll get all the
>
> From: James Bognar <james.bognar@salesforce.com>
> To: dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org
> Date: 08/08/2016 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Quick update on status of code.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> I was able to put a .project file in the root.  Now when you load your
> workspace, you'll get all the individual projects in addition to a
> root-level project.  This also gives us access to the root README.md file
> that gets used on the GitHub mirror.
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Peter Haumer <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > I see. I am not familiar with nested Eclipse projects. If you have it
> > working then I will check it out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> > Peter Haumer.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> > PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
> > IBM zSystems Software
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> > [image: Inactive hide details for James Bognar ---08/07/2016 08:44:58
> > AM---On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:19 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@ap]James
> > Bognar ---08/07/2016 08:44:58 AM---On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:19 PM, John
> D.
> > Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 a
> >
> > From: James Bognar <james.bognar@salesforce.com>
> > To: dev@juneau.incubator.apache.org
> > Date: 08/07/2016 08:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Quick update on status of code.
> > ------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:19 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM James Bognar <
> james.bognar@salesforce.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I still struggle a little bit with setting it up in my IDE.  It seems
> > like
> > > the role of the typical root pom is covered by releng/pom.xml.  Would
> > there
> > > be any concerns with moving that to the proper location?
> > >
> >
> > @Peter -
> > I've created a root-level .project file.  This will create an eclipse
> > project called "juneau-root" where we can place the releng POM.  I'm
fine
> > with moving the releng POM to the root now that it can be accessed
> through
> > Eclipse.  Do you agree?
> >
> > @John -
> > One neat thing I just noticed... Our README.md file in the root gets
used
> > when accessing the project through the GitHub mirror.  I think our
GitHub
> > mirror should be the primary portal for accessing our source code.
It's
> > read-only though, right?  If you want to actually contribute, you need
to
> > access the code through the apache git repo?
> >
> > > One interesting note is that I'm seeing consistent timing differences
> > when
> > > > running the core JUnits under different versions of Java...
> > > > Java 6 - ~8 seconds
> > > > Java 7 - ~10 seconds
> > > > Java 8 - ~4.5 seconds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I know Jenkins was mentioned.  Should we have builds for all 3
> versions?
> > > What about 9?  IBM JDKs?
> >
> >
> > Agreed.  We use low-level reflection APIs extensively which can be
> subject
> > to behavioral differences between vendors and versions.  These tests
run
> in
> > just seconds, so I'm in favor of adding a good mix of JVMs to test
> against.
> >
> >
> > I'm in favor of using Jenkins for builds.  If anyone on the team
familiar
> > with Jenkins?  If not, I'm fine holding off setting that up until
later.
>  I
> > personally have lots of other stuff on my plate (setting up webpage and
> > confluence workspaces).
> >
> >
> > > > Still missing is running the server JUnits as part of the Maven
> build.
> > > > These are tricky and I don't know enough about Maven yet to know
how
> to
> > > > handle these.  The oaj.samples and oaj.server.test projects get
> > executed
> > > as
> > > > REST microservices on port 10000 and 10001 respectively (they get
> built
> > > as
> > > > executable jars).  The JUnits in those projects run against those
> > > services
> > > > using the RestClient API.  The old ANT script used to execute those
> > jars
> > > > and then run the JUnits.  We'll need to do something similar using
> > Maven.
> > >
> > > Those sound like integration tests.  Is there a simple way to start
the
> > > microservice as a main or something in the code?
> > >
> >
> > Yep....the RestMicroservice class is started up through a main method.
> We
> > invoke it directly when using the juneau-samples launcher to start it
up
> in
> > Eclipse.
> > The RestMicroservice class uses info from the MANIFEST.MF file.  But it
> > works fine whether packaged as an executable jar or loose on the file
> > system under ./META-INF/MANIFEST.MF.
> >
> > @Peter - Can you work on adding these integration tests to the POM
files?
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Bognar
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> James Bognar
>
>
>
>


--
James Bognar



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/related (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message