Re: [eclipselink-dev] Patch available for review... 297217

[Blaise Doughan <blaise.doughan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

I am interested in this change, but will probably require you to walk me 
though some of the finer points.

-Blaise

Eric Gwin wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Never fear. I'd have had you review it if nothing else, but also 
> wanted Blaise to take a look. Right now I'm trying to ensure that the 
> fact there was a patch and this change is coming was clearly 
> communicated to the community. So that anyone who was interested could 
> have a look and make comments.
>
> -Eric
>
> Tom Ware wrote:
> > No significant patch should be committed without review.  In the 
> > absence of a volunteer, please ask someone that has either shown 
> > interest, or has expertise in the area of the patch to review.
> >
> > Eric Gwin wrote:
> > > I haven't received any response from the previous email, and could 
> > > come to two possible conclusions:
> > > - No one is interested enough in the fix to review it. or
> > > - It wasn't noticed because the announcement was hidden in another 
> > > thread.
> > >
> > > If there is no interest, I will commit this patch after the M1 
> > > milestone for 2.1.0 is complete.
> > >
> > > This patch implements several proposed changes:
> > > - To the test build standards as outlined below.
> > > - To the build standards as discussed in a separate thread (.jar, 
> > > .lib, .dir, and other defined standards)
> > > - It starts the process of cleaning up classpaths by defining each 
> > > dependency (rather than using
> > >  a single variable: eclipselink.core.depend).
> > > - It demonstrates a merging of test build styles between core and moxy.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric Gwin wrote:
> > > > I've created  a bug and added a patch for review:
> > > >
> > > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=297217
> > > >
> > > > The patch includes:
> > > > - prototype of MOXy test with new standards applied
> > > > - inclusion of new build standards (property names - for use with 
> > > > future dependency work)
> > > > - ability to create product jars without compiling
> > > >   - rework to oracle, to intelligently determine if only repackage, 
> > > > or full package/repackage is needed at execution time.
> > > >
> > > > If interested, please review.
> > > >
> > > > -Eric
> > > >
> > > > Eric Gwin wrote:
> > > > > I did forget to mention we did talk about minimal classpaths. I 
> > > > > don't recall if it was determined (or assumed) if we should make 
> > > > > an effort at this time to re-factor to use minimal jar dependencies.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric Gwin wrote:
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yesterday a meeting was held between all parties who expressed 
> > > > > > interest in the test rework plan. Below is a summary of the 
> > > > > > revised plan:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Test builds will all have config specific compile and run targets
> > > > > >   - for example: compile-against-jar, compile-against-bundles, 
> > > > > > compile-against-classes and run-against-jar, run-against....
> > > > > >   - JPA will need to have the eclipselink.jar in the CP, even for 
> > > > > > compile-against-classes (unless including the resources works
> > > > > >     for the processing of _classes).
> > > > > > - run will not depend upon compile
> > > > > >   - MOXy and SDO will have the run dependency upon compile broken
> > > > > >   - default component targets will still
> > > > > > - default execution paths will use ...against-jar
> > > > > > - There needs to be a documented means of testing against a 
> > > > > > specific build (jar or bundle)
> > > > > >  - Maven was chosen as the desired mechanism for retrieving 
> > > > > > specific builds for testing
> > > > > >  - It was determined that the Maven-test scripts were beyond 
> > > > > > scope of this particular effort
> > > > > >  - QA was going to investigate getting this process going
> > > > > >  - It was also determined that with Maven in place there would be 
> > > > > > little need to have eclipselink.jar commited post-build to SVN
> > > > > >    (But that is also beyond scope)
> > > > > > - a desire was expressed for a way to assemble the bundles and 
> > > > > > jars without forcing a compile
> > > > > >  - developers would like a way to use Eclipse generated classes 
> > > > > > to run against-jar tests.
> > > > > >  - I will investigate. It should be a simple matter of an 
> > > > > > additional high level target (Again it is slightly out of scope).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did I miss anything?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > > > > > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > > > > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > > > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > eclipselink-dev mailing list
> > eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-dev mailing list
> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev