Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [rt-pmc] Re: [jetty-dev] jetty dependency's and 'releasing' within eclipse

Jeff,

I'll take this in reverse order:


Jeff McAffer wrote:
> Having a maven repo at eclipse.org is trivial.  Maven repos are just
> disk layouts.  When you get some code approved for use in Jetty, put it
> in the right spot on your part of eclipse.org and away you go.  (hmmm, I
> could be naive about that but it "should" work no?).  It should be easy
> to have the Orbit build spit out a maven repo format.

A maven repository is indeed technically trivial and should be easy to
setup, specially if we can have some form or repository manager to help.

But the important part of a repository is the process and reproducibility
of it.   For example, the central maven repository goes to some lengths
to make sure that it is write only and you can trust that something that
was called version 1.2.3.4 will never ever ever change.

So we would need to make sure that the eclipse repository was
protected with similar processes (procedural and technical) to
ensure the repository is good.  As mike has suggested, this
can be based on the existing Orbit process so should be moderately
easy.


But importantly, the jars available from the eclipse repository
might differ from those available elsewhere, because they may
have been through eclipse conditioning.   It is very important
that this difference be flagged in the either groupId, artefact
ID, classifier or version.    So for example a jar available
from maven central repository as

  javax.servlet:servlet-api:2.4

when placed in the eclipse repository might be classified as

 javax.servlet:servlet-api-eclipse:2.4


I actually think this is an excellent thing to do in any case,
so that jars that have been audited and signed by eclipse are
clearly marked as such and will not get mixed up with
unsigned unaudited jars.

Also, it would be good to leverage the capabilities of maven
to associate source, javadoc and xref with entries in a repository.
After all it is the source that is audited and maven will allow
that source to be in the repository and tools (such as m2eclipse)
automatically download and navigate into that source as you
develop and/or debug with these jars.



> This effectively addresses all issues no?

I think this address all issues long term and the issues for the
core of Jetty short term.

But there is still an issue with the JSP short term.

We aspire to have a quality JSP implementation available in the
eclipse repository.  However, we can't say how long that process
will take as Jasper is a project with a chequered history.
It has been forked and forked again, maintainers have moved about
and contributions have been done under several different systems.

We cannot see how JSP can be cleared in the time frame in which we
wish to make a Jetty-7 release, so our options are:

   0) don't include JSP in the downloads from eclipse.  Point users
      at the codehaus for JSP.

   1) Give the JSP jars some special consideration so that they
      are included in the jetty@eclipse downloads, but they are
      explicitly excluded as not audited by eclipse.

   2) Delay Jetty-7 until JSP is audited.

We are happy with 0)  but feel there is a wider desire for 2), to
which we suggest 1) as a compromise.


On this matter, jeff said:

> It is clear that Eclipse needs JSP support
> and there may be a few other little things that make sense.  In the JSP
> case in particula, it would be goofy if we have Jetty@Eclipse and yet
> continue to ship the JSP support from Tomcat.  Especially is if it
> deemed inferior.  So how do we get there.  I really don't know how big a
> mess this is from an IP point of view but I'm willing to back putting
> the "right" JSP support code in a CQ and starting in on it.  We should
> work with the IP team to understand if it is better to do #2 or #3 but
> frankly, as a consumer, I don't really care.  As long as we can get it
> from Eclipse.org and it has been IP approved, we're golden.

Maybe we are wrong about the time it will take to CQ JSP.

So let's at least start the CQ process for JSP.  We'll submit one
in the next day or so.    Maybe it will pass moderately painlessly
and option 2) above will be possible.

But in parallel, it would be good if we could have some opinions
if option 1) is even an option?

Failing that, once we get Jetty-7 ready and option 2) is not
ready, then we can decide to go option 0)


cheers










Back to the top