Jerome Dochez wrote:
> Lloyd Chambers wrote:
>> Harsha,
>>
>> I expect I will need to make more HK2 changes/additions as V3
>> development progresses, so this will be an ongoing issue.
> I agree, but I really don't see why hk2 is special here,
because, hk2 seems like a very critical component -- any failure in hk2
will just brings everything to HALT. (may be we should define what
other v3 modules/projects are in such category 'critical' to v3)
I had the same thought as Lloyd. hk2 shouldn't be a standing outside
v3 (as one option).
By doing this, there is no such dependency defined on v3 where it needs
to download the hk2 artifacts from a remote repo.
We should definitely have a contingency plan in case, a similar problem
with repos happens again. Adequate soak time for the new bits in hk2
is one idea.
> if artifacts are not published to the maven repo, anyone not building
> the entire source tree is in hell. if you are building the entire
> source tree then create a local super pom that does hk2 and v3
> compilation together.
I think, the above is inevitable when we use maven. (no network ->, no
repos.. -> no build / no product?)
thanks..
>>
>> One option is for HK2 to become part of V3. Another is to document
>> exactly what must be done for a seamless push of HK2, preferably
>> automated without any voodoo.
>>
>> For last weekend's fun, an API (interface) change meant that HK2 and
>> V3 needed to change in sync
> if our tools (namely the download.java.net repo server) was working
> fine, this is not as bad as you describe, I have done it many times.
> The real issue is the repo fragility, since with a fragile
> repository, any release is impossible, but also any snapshot is
> potentially outdated creating a real threat for anyone building only a
> few modules for productivity.
>
> jerome
>>
>> Lloyd
>>
>> ..............................................
>> Lloyd Chambers
>> lloyd.chambers_at_sun.com
>> GlassFish team
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Harsha Godugu wrote:
>>
>>> In future, if we touch hk2, (and still use SNAPSHOTs) probably it is
>>> a good idea to give at least 3days lead time to do such change in
>>> hk2 first (or any parent of v3)
>>> and then come back to v3 to do the dependent changes. What do you
>>> think?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>