Community
Participate
Working Groups
This is a placeholder/tracking bug for the purpose of adding the EclipseLink Galileo bundles to the Java EE package. The EclipseLink bundles fit nicely into a package intended for Java EE developers. Its inclusion completes a nice out-of-the-box experience for the Dali JPA Tools.
As Package owner, I've been aware of this request for quite a while, and certainly see some merit in it. My concern is that the EclipseLink Project was not even in the Galileo builds, until just M7, and then just barely, and even still not completely as they have not met all the criteria (signing and packing). I would like to have a 'rule' for this JEE package that components must be "in" in plenty of time for testing, and community feedback, and not sure there is time for that, now that we are at RC1 already. How much increase in size would there be? What kind of testing is the EclipseLink team willing to sign up for? I also think that since EclipseLink itself is "pure runtime" there is less advantage to having it in the development environment, and with the new runtime target provisioning there are other good model for users/developers to make use of it. I could tell people were tired of the silence :) so thought I'd dump my concerns here.
It is unfortunate that we were late getting in but I believe it is valuable to the Eclipse community to have runtime technologies under the EE umbrella represented in the EE package. I know we were tight getting things wrapped up for M7 but had completely expected to find EclipseLink in the EE package. I know we were cleaning up requirements right up until the last minute and are just completing the signing issue now. Given this bug was filed on April 20th I would have much rather discussed your concerns prior to M7 instead of waiting until M7 has been completed and we were omitted. We are very eager to have this for Galileo so please let us know what additional testing you believe we need to sign up for. The work will be split between the EclipseLink and Dali teams. The signing issue is being addressed now. There were some problems that the Eclipse webmaster had to help out with permissions. This should be resolved this week. The OOTB experience with Dali and its EclipseLink JPA extensions is much better if the developer does not need to pull in the EclipseLink JPA feature. BUNDLE SIZES We have two options for how we include EclipseLink in the EE package. While including everything would be ideal I understand the need to limit size. At a minimum we would like the JPA feature included in the EE package as it is the piece supported by WTP's Dali. All 3 features (JPA, MOXy, SDO) with dependencies = 4779 KB Only the JPA feature with dependencies = 3908 KB NOTE: Should be a small reduction in size due to existing dependencies in EE. INCLUSION This is an Eclipse project offer JavaEE functionality (JPA) that should be available in our EE package assuming we want our runtime technologies to gain broader acceptance and use.
Created attachment 135678 [details] EclipseLink bundle and dependency sizes
> What kind of testing is the EclipseLink team willing to sign up for? The Dali project will provide both development and QA resources for integration testing of the added EclipseLink bundles, in addition to any package testing provided by the EclipseLink project.
> Given this bug was filed on April 20th I would have much > rather discussed your concerns prior to M7 instead of > waiting until M7 has been completed and we were omitted. Communication is hard, eh? We obviously had/have much different expectations about how things progress in Eclipse development. I fully expected things to start showing up shortly after 4/20 and when it didn't ... I opened bugs, gave nag warnings, didn't hear much or see anything and had many other things to focus on. And, given my training in "the Eclipse Way", I'd never change something substantial in the last week of a milestone! And normally not even after the last milestone! Guess you have a different background or process. Looking at your download pages, you appear to have spurts of having weekly milestone builds and then a release every few months. Is that right? I'm trying to be flexible right now, given the circumstances and potential benifits, but what are you are signing up for? Regular maintenance builds including regular testing, right? Exact schedule to be determined, but between release and SRs, I'd expect it to start at once per month, then ever other week, then every week. What do you plan? Additionally, I'm hoping that we (all simultaneous release projects) jump right into the rhythm of 6 week milestones for next year. > ... let us know what additional testing you believe we > need to sign up for. The work will be split between the > EclipseLink and Dali teams. Thanks for the offer. Do you agree to test "the package as a whole"? And not literally just EclipseLink and Dali? End-to-end scenarios, preferences, help, documentation, updates? Which platforms can you test? Mac's? Linux? (That'd be very helpful). Please see http://wiki.eclipse.org/EPP/Package_Testing for some idea of what's expected, in the ideal. And, I assume you'd be willing to provide a small 10/15 minute 'smoke test' scenario, so others could test your stuff, as the other 4 or so links under the JEE section of that test document. > The signing issue is being addressed now. and pack200, right? :) > All 3 features (JPA, MOXy, SDO) = 4779 KB > Only the JPA feature with dependencies = 3908 KB Am I being dense? (Wouldn't be the first time) But isn't 4779 KB approximately 4 or 5 Megabytes, and if I am seeing my install correctly, I think you meant 40 or 50 Megabytes? 4 or 5 is no big deal, but 40 or 50 is about a 25% increase. I take a 25% increase right at the point of agrevating users who do not want to use JPA or EclipseLink. One major, substantial question ... for which there's little time left to test unfortunately ... What if someone wants to install an alternative runtime? OpenJPA? Hibernate? You seamlessly blend those in, right? [I know ... I should know the answer to that already ... but, I don't, so need to explicitly check]. While I want to promote EclipseLink as an Eclipse Project, we can not cut-off others. Thanks in advance.
Some updates: 1. We have completed the signing and pack200 efforts and should have an updated P2 repository Friday afternoon. 2. I believe we are good on the testing approach. I also work with multiple JPA implementations and will continue to verify on all Galileo RC builds. I will review the wiki page and add a test scenario. 3. The sizes I posted are accurate but may be slightly smaller now due to pack200. Let us know where you are seeing larger files. The release we are shipping in Galileo is from our 1.1.0 branch which had its release March 12th. We have only done bug fixes to this stable release adding no additional functionality for our 1.1.1 patch-set which is what we have provided so far in our repository and have plans for a final 1.1.2 patch-set for Galileo. This final patch-set will include Galileo required changes and only critical customer found issues. We work very hard to avoid any changes late in the cycle as well.
(In reply to comment #6) > > 3. The sizes I posted are accurate ... > Let us know where you are seeing larger files. > That's good to hear, for the sake of the zip file. It has, though, crept up to be over 200Meg this year. It was 170 last year. So, I will be looking for things to trim. Only mistakes though ... not function :) My confusion comes from the size of my install directory before and after installing EclipseLink ... which I'll detail here, since it's interesting. I did it again today, being very careful with what I picked to install (avoiding source), etc., and still see an increase of 20 Megabytes. On Windows, I unzip the M7 JEE zip file, startup eclipse. shutdown. Directory is about 243 Megs. I then go to /releases/galileo and install the 3 eclipselink features, restart, and shutdown. Size is then 261 M. (271 if installed source too). So ... just looked ... apparently P2 is saving some "profile history" and I guess for Java EE IDE, they are huge .. 5 Megs each! .. and seems there's several saved for each install operation, or something ... but in any case, another issue, not EclipseLink. I'll have to remember to compare just directory size of "plugins and features" and leave P2 out of it next time I want to do a quick check. I notice you didn't say if you ever test on linux or mac's? Few of the rest of us say either :) but I'll be looking, so if you do test on those platforms, let me know. To be explicit, the three feature ids I'll add for RC1 are org.eclipse.persistence.jpa org.eclipse.persistence.moxy org.eclipse.persistence.sdo
Updating a bug while the Canes are in game-7 overtime. sorry Our Dali development and QA teams will do the various platform testing. I believe that was the intent of Neil's comment #4. I will double-check with them and ensure that this is covered off.
the features are in the latest jee ide package (rc1). Please test.
