[kepler-dev] packaging tasks

[Aaron Schultz]

Hi Chad,

Yes we should probably have a conference call. 

As it is coming together now the KAR file format is dependent on what 
modules are extending the KAREntryHandler extension point so we cannot 
guarantee that the KAR file format will always match the module format.  
Also, because KAR files will not include class definitions or JAR files 
in the 2.0 release but only metadata and possibly module dependency 
information I am not sure that it is of any value to have the two file 
formats be the same.  In my mind they are very different systems where 
modules may contain KARs but KARs lack the functionality of modules for 
loading any kind of code into the system through classloaders and 
therefore are not equivalent.

Perhaps a better understanding of what the functionality of the KAR file 
system will include in release 2.0 would clarify this for everyone and 
change our deliverables.

Thanks,
Aaron

Chad Berkley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to figure out what tasks we have for the packaging 
> subsystem that we talked about in the developers meeting last week.  
> Here's the link to the notes:
>
> https://kepler-project.org/developers/projects/kepler-core/meetings/2009-05-08-kepler-core-meeting/2009-05-08-meeting-requirements-and-milestones-notes 
>
>
> The only deliverable that we noted was to change the kar format to 
> match the packaging format.  Items 5, 8 and 16 were the only MUSTS 
> that we identified and item 2a is a SHOULD.
>
> The deliverables that should come out of these bullet items are as 
> follows:
>
> 1) The KAR format should match the module format.  i.e. if you expand 
> a kar file, it should look like a module.
> 2) KAR files should be able to support adding any type of object 
> (metadata/data).  I think this is (at least mostly) already possible 
> but would need to be changed if we change the internal format of the 
> kar file.
> 3) Groups of actors in a kar file need to be able to be accessed 
> individually for searching purposes
>
> Is there anything I'm missing?
>
> The two major bullet items (1 & 15) in the list say "more discussion 
> needed...".  Should we have these discussions now via conf. call, or 
> wait until after the release?  As it is, in my opinion, the three 
> items I've identified above don't buy us much for the 2.0 release 
> without the functionality in the "needs more discussion..." points.  
> As time is dwindling before the 2.0 release, should we push this 
> entire task to post 2.0 or should we try to get at least some of it 
> done and take time away from other tasks?
>
> If people agree that we should discuss this further before 2.0, I'd be 
> happy to organize the conf. call.
>
> Thanks,
> chad
> _______________________________________________
> Kepler-dev mailing list
> Kepler-dev at kepler-project.org
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/kepler/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev