Noel,
Please see below:
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
> pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
> users will have to add incubator repos explicitly/consciously and
> won't get podling jars pulled in w/o their knowledge.
What's the burden imposed by this on the user? Does this mean that we could
eliminate the Incubator specific repository in favor of
<scope>provided</scope>?
The burden on the user is that if he really wants to use that
artifact, he/she should add it in their own pom's and add the
repository also in their pom explicitly.
And is this an appropriate thing, since if Axis2
or Geronimo do that, doesn't it mean that the jar is no longer packaged with
them when they release?
No, this means that the dist may have the jars. We are focusing on
stopping users from auto-magically pulling in incubator artifacts via
m2 dependency mechansims w/o their cooperation.
Is that an issue?
Depends on who you ask :) Right?
If the goals are to help protect users from a naive (as contrasted with an
informed) dependence on projects that haven't yet earned their ASF-status,
and to ensure that Incubator projects aren't just trying to cash in on the
ASF-brand without adopting our methods, where are the appropriate lines of
control?
We need to add some guidelines for how projects like Axis2 and
Geronimo use incubator artifacts in addition to the guidelines in
place for the Inucbator artifacts themselves.
If (for the sake of argument) WS decides to ship some Incubator JAR as part
of some WS release, and is supporting the release are they counting on the
Incubator JAR, or on you providing certain functionality?
They are counting on WS project. Case in point, woden is used for WSDL
2.0. If woden dies, Axis2 should come up with an alternative. For
Geronimo, if cxf dies, there's always Axis2. FWIW, I really like how G
balances rather juggles multiple options Tomcat/Jetty, Different
flavors of JPA, Axis2/CXF etc.
Of course, that
ought to weigh into your own decision to include the JAR in the first place.
Would this be the same as a company using Roller in production to sell a
service while Roller was still in the Incubator? A service purchaser is
expecting a blog, but perhaps not counting on how that functionality is
provided. Should it depend on whether the JAR's API is exposed, or simply
some functionality that you can maintain/replace? Again, reflecting back on
the goals.
Yes, existing projects should exercise caution and plan for failures.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
