Grouper Developers Forum

[Kathryn Huxtable <>]

More thoughts on compelling reasons for change. The compelling reason  
was not for Grouper or Signet. It was for Ldappc, which had an  
incredibly long, complicated, convoluted, spaghetti-code ant build  
file. It was impossible to maintain. Mavenizing Ldappc simplified it  
no end.

These reasons may well not apply to other projects.

-K

On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Kathryn Huxtable wrote:

> And I concur with Michael. No one has, so far as I know, suggested  
> that Signet or Grouper be mavenized. The most I've done is said, hey  
> look, this is pretty good.
>
> -K
>
> On Aug 7, 2008, at 6:13 AM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>
> > Dave, I agree change for the sake of change is not
> > desirable.  I just don't buy the consistency argument.
> > Especially, from my experiences with COmanage,
> > things are already not consistent, by any stretch.
> >
> > /mrg
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2008, at 1:59 AM, Dave Donnelly wrote:
> > > Shibboleth may be mavenized, but Ldappc is being *used*
> > > with Grouper and Signet, both of which use Ant. So I
> > > would have to agree with Mike O. regarding consistency.
> > >
> > > As for "things shall never change", I have yet to hear
> > > any compelling reasons to devote (divert?) resources into
> > > converting Signet's working, easy-to-maintain, easy-to-use
> > > build process to something else. Managed change is a good
> > > thing - change for the sake of change ain't.
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael R. Gettes wrote:
> > > > I agree with KH.  Following MO's line of thinking essentially says
> > > > "things shall never change".  I can't subscribe to such lines
> > > > of thinking.
> > > >
> > > > /mrg
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 6, 2008, at 17:32, Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, Shibboleth has been mavenized. That's part of the suite of  
> > > > > tools provided by Internet2.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with the  
> > > > > weight you give to that kind of consistency.
> > > > >
> > > > > -K
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 6, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Mike Olive wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, I had to drop off the call before providing
> > > > > > feedback regarding the use of Maven. I believe that one of
> > > > > > the most important things to consider when deciding upon
> > > > > > infrastructure related changes is its impact the user. In
> > > > > > this specific instance, I believe it is important to provide a
> > > > > > consistent experience to the user for building and installing
> > > > > > our set of I2 Middleware products and so believe that the
> > > > > > Ant version of Ldappc be kept up-to-date as the default project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > MO
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > < -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > < From: Kathryn Huxtable 
> > > > > > [mailto:]
> > > > > > < Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:47 AM
> > > > > > < To: 
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Dev; 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > < Subject: [signet-dev] Re: Ldappc has been mavenized, need  
> > > > > > advice
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < Another relevant question is, do we keep it mavenized at all?  
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > < suggests we discuss this in the call tomorrow.
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < It'd be nice if some of you would try it out, to at least
> > > > > > < download the
> > > > > > < binary and source snapshots and look at what gets produced.  
> > > > > > Take a
> > > > > > < look at the site documentation as well.
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < I have a new version-free ldappc wiki page at
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > <     https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/display/i2miCommon/Ldappc
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < It links to a downloads page at
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > <    < https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/display/i2miCommon/Ldapp
> > > > > > < c+Software+Download
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < There are links on the downloads page to the various distros
> > > > > > < including
> > > > > > < the 1.2.0 snapshot releases and a link to the browsable  
> > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < Or you can go directly to the browsable documentation at
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > <     http://www.kathrynhuxtable.org/projects/site/ldappc/
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < -K
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < On Aug 4, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > < > I have a 1.2.0 version almost ready to go. I'm working on  
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > < > sample configuration files and then I'm done.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > The new version supports Signet 1.3.0, but more importantly  
> > > > > > from a
> > > > > > < > developer's position, it has switched from using ant to
> > > > > > < maven as the
> > > > > > < > build tool.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > This involved moving the source from src/java to src/main/ 
> > > > > > java and
> > > > > > < > src/test/java.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > Because I didn't want to lose version data for the files,  
> > > > > > which I
> > > > > > < > moved with no changes, I started with a clean copy of the
> > > > > > < project in
> > > > > > < > a separate CVS project called ldappc-mvn and then hand- 
> > > > > > moved the
> > > > > > < > files around on the CVS server.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > The big question is, what to do now.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > 1) I can attempt to merge these files back into the ldappc  
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > < > and delete the existing files so that they're in the Attic,
> > > > > > < but I'll
> > > > > > < > still have the tags for the files in their new locations,
> > > > > > < so I don't
> > > > > > < > think this is a good idea.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > 2) I can leave everything the way it is.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > 3) My preference is to rename the ldappc project to ldappc- 
> > > > > > old or
> > > > > > < > ldappc-legacy or something like that and rename the ldappc- 
> > > > > > mvn
> > > > > > < > project to ldappc. We would update references in the wiki  
> > > > > > so that
> > > > > > < > people wanting to check out the old code could do so.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > Of course if we had been using subversion you can rename
> > > > > > < directories
> > > > > > < > and move files without losing version information...
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > Do people have suggestions as to what I should do?
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > As I said, my preference is (3) and use "maven-old" for the
> > > > > > < name for
> > > > > > < > the old project.
> > > > > > < >
> > > > > > < > -K
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > <