Hi Marcus,
Sorry for the late reply and thanks for your understanding.
I got the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that you may have thought
the Jersey project as something different or expected to be something
that it is not.
Jersey is not about the hosting of JAX-RS projects with their own
development, build and release constraints and ultimately their own
identity. Jersey is about the co-ordinated and synchronized
development, building, testing, sustaining and releasing of a high-
quality JAX-RS implementation and useful extensions be they JAX-RS
specific or not.
Note that on a practical level we simply do not have the resources to
maintain such a hosting environment even if we wanted to (especially
one that requires testing and sustaining using multiple JAX-RS
implementations).
Given that your primary goal is for a cross-platform implementation
and marketing of that then being part of Jersey "brand" may actually
hinder your progress as Jersey is fundamentally bound to a particular
JAX-RS implementation.
I think maybe a good solution is for you to create project where you
push releases to a maven repository, and Jersey can provide a sample
using the WebDAV module (with the version and constraints you have
defined) perhaps with other JAX-RS/Jersey features. If you do that
then i do not think the WebDAV code needs to be "copied/forked" in
some sense and consumed into the Jersey build and release process (i
would prefer to avoid such additional integration work and rely on
the build, testing releasing performed by the WebDAV project).
Of course Craig and I would be very happy if WebDAV is core part of
Jersey. One advantage of that is once WebDAV moves into the trunk and
stable releases it will get sustained. And, may potentially get
distributed with GlassFish (we currently release Jersey to the
GlassFish v2/v3 update centers and Jersey will get distributed as
part of Glassfish for EE 6). A possible disadvantage is might take
longer to reach a stable release with Jersey than as an independent
project.
Even if you have a separate project i have no objections to you using
the Jersey users/dev list for discussions on WebDAV design/
development/issues. But, just speaking for myself, i cannot give
those discussions a priority over Jersey-specific discussions.
So as you say there are pros and cons.
Hope that clarifies things a bit: i am trying to be as open as
possible within the constraints of what Jersey is.
Paul.
On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
> Paul,
>
> thanks for your clarification, maybe I misunderstood some of the
> arguments (for example, why it shall be any kind of problem that
> jersey-webdav.jar has a different version number that jersey-
> core.jar or that it uses another Java SE generation).
>
> I have to think about the pros and cons. As I said, being part of
> the jersey project is nice, but WebDAV shall keep its status of a
> product that will run on any JAX-RS implementation, this is the
> topmost priority. Maybe we could do it this way: I develop WebDAV
> in a separate project with Java SE 6 and its own versioning schema,
> which you can bundle with Jersey -- or mirror a copy of the my
> latest release (or any of your choice) in the jersey svn tree which
> has the exact jersey version number and gets actively checked
> against Java SE 5 by you (as you have Java SE 5 while I do not)? So
> the active development of WebDAV and Jersey go with different
> versioning speed, but both projects can have the latest WebDAV
> features. Maybe this is the best solution?
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> From: Craig.McClanahan_at_Sun.COM [mailto:Craig.McClanahan_at_Sun.COM]
> Sent: Montag, 26. Januar 2009 22:23
> To: dev_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> Subject: Re: [Jersey] WebDAV pom.xml
>
> Markus KARG wrote:
> Paul,
>
> see inlined. :-)
>
> Markus KARG wrote:
> Well, this depends on what Paul and Marc want to make out of
> Jersey: If they want to make it a collection of JAX-RS utilities
> ontop of a JAX-RS implementation, then I do not see that a split is
> needed. Actually it was a standalone project before (internally
> hosted by us, not publicly available) and I asked whether I shall
> make a standalone project or contribute to Jersey. It was Paul that
> said that he likes it to be part of Jersey. So I have to wait for
> his decision how he will deal with the fact that it can run with
> other JAX-RS implementations and has its own version schema and
> livecycle.
>
> My personal feelings about this -- if a module lives in a Jersey
> namespace (Java package name and/or Maven group and artifact
> identifiers), ships with Jersey (presumably a goal at some point in
> the development process), and has its source somewhere in the
> Jersey trunk (presumably would happen with a merge to trunk from
> the current branch), then that module should carry the same version
> number (and release timelines) as the rest of Jersey. Further, I
> would think the package names, as well as other conventions such as
> JDK dependencies and common build plugins, should also match.
>
> The fact that the module may or may not have any dependencies on
> Jersey internals is an implementation detail (and that of course
> gets reflected in the <dependencies> section of its POM) that may
> or may not change in the future. That by itself should not be a
> deciding factor on versioning, or for that matter naming.
>
> If the module wants the "marketing" benefits :-) of being part of
> Jersey, instead of being standalone, then it should really *be*
> part of Jersey. Even if (at the moment) it will actually run on
> any JAX-RS implemenetation (and therefore declare only the API jar
> in its dependencies).
>
> This particular codebase is off to a very promising start, and is
> something I would personally like to see in Jersey (with, as usual
> for me, some love for the client side too :-). But I'd prefer to
> see it "all in" rather than being perceived as straddling a fence.
>
> I agree with Craig.
>
> I would like to see this as part of Jersey under the same
> constraints as other modules in the contribs. I assumed that this
> would be the case, but i did not communicate this assumption before
> hand, but sometimes these discussions take time to reveal
> themselves and solidify :-) as a result i think we should change
> the contribution page to detail the constraints for modules.
>
> It was not clear that "contribution to jersey" means "contributing
> MODULES to jersey that give up their indepency" (sorry for assuming
> that my code could stay independent -- I am living in a federal
> nation so I just assumed this principle. My fault.).
>
> Markus, i think you have to decide whether you want the WebDAV
> module to be part of Jersey or as a separate project. Obviously you
> know which decision i would prefer but whatever decision you make
> you have my support in terms of helping out.
>
> I also want the project to stay part of the Jersey project, but not
> necessarily of the Jersey product, but I do not agree with what
> this means in the end for users of other JAX-RS implementations.
> Beeing "a module" means to give up the idea that other JAX-RS
> implementations can run my WebDAV code, or at least, it would be
> harder to identify what JARs are needed and what version number
> contains which changes. I do not want that WebDAV is "a non-
> standalone module", but it is and shall stay ONTOP of the jersey
> core (why not? what would be the benefit of doing that for the user?).
>
> So actually for me this reads like "don't be easily useable with
> other JAX-RS implementations or we will kick you out", which would
> be a rather strange decision for an open project (or maybe this is
> not an open project but just a project producing open source?
> Sorry, my fault.).
>
> I do not see where that follows from what I said. Your pom.xml
> makes it clear that you don't depend on any Jersey internals, which
> means the module is indeed able to be used with other JAX-RS
> implementations.
>
> What I proposed is that, if you're going to live in the jersey SVN
> repository, you're going to be considered by the rest of the world
> as "part of jersey" -- and we should not be surprising people by
> violating that expectation.
>
> Why can't we just add a folder to the SVN tree that contains JAX-RS
> related, standalone projects which can run with any JAX-RS
> implementation but are not forced to have the Java Version and
> project version be in line with Jersey's core? That would be an
> easy, simple solution with which we all could be live, and I would
> be happy if WebDAV would not be the only one -- ATOM support would
> be absolutely correctly located there, too, and a lot of other JAX-
> RS implementation users would be happy to download jersey-atom.jar
> and jersey-webdav.jar and use it with any implementation they
> like. :-)
> Frankly, that sounds like you want it to be a separate project. If
> so, that's certainly your choice. By the way, the current ATOM
> support (in both jersey-atom based on Rome, and jersey-atom-abdera
> based on Abdera) do have dependencies on jersey-core -- it saved a
> bunch of extra coding to do this -- so they wouldn't really fit
> your definitlion of a "JAX-RS related" set of projects that is not
> implementation dependent.
>
>
>
> What do you think about this?
> Personally, I really hope you choose to stay part of Jersey --
> working with other implementations too is a nice bonus, but Jersey
> would definitely benefit by having WebDAV support as part of its
> releases.
>
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> Craig
>
> Paul.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> From: Edelson, Justin [mailto:Justin.Edelson_at_mtvstaff.com]
> Sent: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009 22:45
> To: dev_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> Subject: RE: [Jersey] WebDAV pom.xml
>
> Just my 2 cents (and feel free to ignore), but it seems like this
> needs to be separated from Jersey and made a standalone project at
> java.net (or somewhere else).
>
> Justin
>
> From: Markus KARG [mailto:markus.karg_at_gmx.net]
> Sent: Sat 1/24/2009 11:58 AM
> To: dev_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> Subject: RE: [Jersey] WebDAV pom.xml
> Paul,
>
> first of all, thank you for your ideas and sorry for not answering
> earlier.
> Once more I catched a cold and so I did not find the power to spend my
> evenings with complex issues. More inline.
>
> > Every time we release Jersey we do the following:
> > - make a tag of the trunk;
> > - change the version in the trunk of all modules from "xxx-
> > SNAPSHOT" to "yyy-SNAPSHOT"; and
> > - change the version in the tag of all modules to "xxx" and
> deploy
> > the maven artifacts to the repo.
> > It makes it a lot easier to manage releases if all module
> versions are
> > in sync and we release at the same time. Generally all Jersey
> modules
> > tend to have a coupling of Jersey APIs where we also tend to, at
> least
> > currently, have a fast update between components to fix issues and
> > support features. So i would prefer to retain this approach.
> > Do you envisage having a different release cycle to that of
> Jersey as
> > well as a different version number?
> > Maybe the contribs area is not really suitable in this respect
> and we
> > need another area separate from Jersey for components that can be
> > versioned and released independently? e.g.
> > trunk/components
> > I think that may better suit your requirements based on what you say
> > above and below. i.e. i don't want to unduly constrain your
> > development and what you depend on. We can set up separate Hudson
> jobs
> > to build components.
>
> In fact, WebDAV stuff is not related to Jersey in any way. The
> project was
> build solely on JAX-RS 1.0, and does not know about any Jersey
> specific
> thing. So from a technical aspect, it is not a Jersey component in the
> narrow sense, but more a usage of Jersey, just as it could be a
> usage of any
> other JAX-RS 1.0 implementation. This is the reason why the release
> politics
> makes sense to stay different from Jersey's. WebDAV just has no
> technical
> need to keep anything in sync with Jersey. The problem is that it
> seems
> there is no really good place to put it. Actually WebDAV is neither a
> contrib to the Jersey engine while it IS one to the Jersey project
> as a pool
> of RESTful technology projects, and it neither is a component of
> the Jersey
> engine. I wouldn't say that it would be best to put it into its own
> top
> level project, but maybe it would be good to have a new folder
> containing
> projects like mine which just USES JAX-RS but not directly Jersey,
> and which
> could be downloaded separately? I'd like people of other JAX-RS
> implementations being able to use WebDAV, and that would be the
> best way for
> that. So Jersey could be two things: A JAX-RS implementation with
> additional
> features PLUS a set of JAX-RS components independent of the JAX-RS
> implementation. This would also be a good place to put Daniel Manzke's
> "Microsoft Interoperability" stuff. What do you think about that?
>
> > Note that JAX-RS does require support on SE 5, so the additional
> > Jersey modules require it as well. In IDEs (at least in NetBeans)
> you
> > can set a project to use SE 6 but compile SE 5 constrained source to
> > catch errors.
>
> Actually what your wrote into the spec is that SE 5 OR LATER is
> needed, so
> it is not a constraint to exactly match SE 5 in all projects that
> are USING
> JAX-RS -- and my code just USES Jersey. My WebDAV code targets in
> Java EE 6
> contained JAX-RS, so SE 6 is what I develop and test upon (and what
> I can
> afford -- I have no time to explicitly test drive on SE 5). Again,
> WebDAV is
> nothing that is inside of Jersey, and it sits ontop of it, so if
> somebody
> wants to use WebDAV he must use SE 6 (which is not a problem in
> times of SE
> 6 everywhere and EE 6 published soon). I do not see the actual
> problem right
> now. Can you elaborate on this so I could understand (anyways I
> have no time
> to check SE 5, and my Eclipse will not know what APIs are not
> existing in SE
> 5 unless I install SE 5 in addition to SE 6, which I just will not
> due since
> I do not understand the need)?
>
> > Jakub will know more, he is our Maven guru :-)
>
> Did not hear anything from him so far, so it seems it was OK what I
> did.
>
> > > As "1.0" effectively means
> > > "[1.0,)" I
> > > do not see why it is better than my explicit "[1.0,)"...?!
> > Oh! i guess i do not understand maven version declarations :-) i
> want
> > to be clear under what conditions Jersey has been tested against but
> > did not want to necessarily restrict developers to using other
> > versions.
>
> Then you should change from your "1.0" (i. e. "1.0, or later than
> 1.0") to
> my "[1.0;2.0)" (i. e. "anything in the range from 1.0 to but not
> including
> 2.0"), which more clearly says that API changes (2.x, 3.x) are not
> accepted,
> while bug fixes are.
>
> Have Fun
> Markus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>
>
>
>
>