RichFaces 5 distribution zip

[ppitonak]

Hi,

I have several questions about RF5 distribution zip.

1. Distribution release 5.0.0-SNAPSHOT is being deployed to the Maven repository because our main Jenkins job uses profile "release" (we need to deploy Showcase artefacts with all classifiers). We should probably rename profile "release" in Showcase.
2. Dist zip contains directory with file readme.txt whose text starts with "RichFaces 4 is a component library". We need to fix RF version. There are no examples in the examples directory, do we want to distribute some?
3. Main readme.txt (in the root directory) starts with "RichFaces 4". We need to update that. It lists some libraries needed in RichFaces applications. However, there are much more libs in lib directory, e.g. aether-*, arquillian-*, graphene-*, jboss-as-* etc. Is this a bug or are we going to distribute all these libraries? Distribution zip is now about 100MB but it used to be about 15MB in 4.x.
4. There are two archetypes included in the distribution zip - kitchensink and simpleapp but both are in version 4.3.1.Final. Shouldn't this be 5.0.0-SNAPSHOT (i.e. 5.0.0.Alpha1 in release time)?

Regards,

Palo

[bleathem]

1. Distribution release 5.0.0-SNAPSHOT is being deployed to the Maven repository because our main Jenkins job uses profile "release" (we need to deploy Showcase artefacts with all classifiers). We should probably rename profile "release" in Showcase.

This is good - we can use that to link to the RichFaces download from the RichFaces static download page: http://www.jboss.org/richfaces/download/nightly

Dist zip contains directory with file readme.txt whose text starts with "RichFaces 4 is a component library". We need to fix RF version. [...]  Main readme.txt (in the root directory) starts with "RichFaces 4". We need to update that. It lists some libraries needed in RichFaces applications.

Editing the readmes is the first step of the release process.  If you prefer, you can file an issue so we change them sooner.

There are no examples in the examples directory, do we want to distribute some?

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RF-12908

However, there are much more libs in lib directory, e.g. aether-*, arquillian-*, graphene-*, jboss-as-* etc. Is this a bug or are we going to distribute all these libraries? Distribution zip is now about 100MB but it used to be about 15MB in 4.x.

Dependencies were added to the distribution in RF-12464. I agree that the distribution zip size is an issue.  Can you create an issue to re-assess which libraries we are including?  Perhaps we should also consider providing the 3rd party dependencies in a separate zip.

There are two archetypes included in the distribution zip - kitchensink and simpleapp but both are in version 4.3.1.Final. Shouldn't this be 5.0.0-SNAPSHOT (i.e. 5.0.0.Alpha1 in release time)?

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RF-12960

[ppitonak]

Brian, thanks for your answers.

[lfryc]

Brian Leathem wrote:

However, there are much more libs in lib directory, e.g. aether-*, arquillian-*, graphene-*, jboss-as-* etc. Is this a bug or are we going to distribute all these libraries? Distribution zip is now about 100MB but it used to be about 15MB in 4.x.

Dependencies were added to the distribution in RF-12464. I agree that the distribution zip size is an issue.  Can you create an issue to re-assess which libraries we are including?  Perhaps we should also consider providing the 3rd party dependencies in a separate zip.

It's a bug caused by recent refactoring.

Only libraries listed in the docs should be placed there.

Could you please file a bug?

[bleathem]

Pavol, when I build the dist zip, with the release profile active, the lib artifacts you listed are not present in the zip.  It behaves as both Lukas and I expected it to (see previous replies).  I suspect the difference is the profiles you have active when you build the dist.  I see two resolutions to this:

1. Build the zip with only the release profile active
2. We are more explicit in which artifacts to include in the zip

I prefer 1) provided that is is possible/convenient with your Jenkins build.  The problem with 2) is it adds a maintenance task if/when the framework dependencies change.

[lfryc]

Hey Brian,

on the Jenkins, we use integration-tests profile, which allows us to verify the framework using framework tests before snapshot artifacts are uploaded.

I would rather investigate (2) and see if we can limit which dependencies the assembly plugin exports.

[ppitonak]

I agree with Lukas that (2) sounds more reasonable.