Posts Tagged ‘plan’
Remember the last time you had to cram your whole hosehold into boxes, bags and cases? You may feel excited about your new home etc. but the whole boxing business is quite a drag, ain’t it? There’s of course at least two ways of approaching this:
- Don’t look, just shovel everything randomly into boxes
- Look at each single piece, indulge in memories associates with it and sort it to its likes
Obviously, (1) means that on the other side you will unpack a whole mess of junk. OTOH, (2) won’t be finished before the moving truck arives. Still deep inside there lives a bit of hope, that you’ll move to your new home with only that stuff you’ll actually want, and everything ready to be neatly deployed into its new destination. Moving could free you from all the junk you don’t want any more, right? And even more, after the move, you may want to know, where everything is, right?
When moving the Object Teams project to Eclipse I was in the lucky situation that I could indeed use the occasion to sort through some of our stuff. The software engineer might be tempted to even speak of some “quality assurance” along the way, but let’s be careful with our wording for now.
On January 26 this year, the Eclipse Object Teams Project was created and we started to put up signs “Object Teams is moving to Eclipse.org”. Recently, I changed that sign to “Object Teams has moved to Eclipse.org”. So, what exactly happened between then and now?
Learning the infrastructure
At first the newly appointed eclipse committer and project lead is overwhelmed with all the shiny technology: web server, wiki, version repositories, build servers, download servers, the portal, project metadata, accounts for this and that, bugzilla components, versions and milestones and what-not. “Alles so schön bunt hier!”
I won’t indulge in talking about the paper work needed at this stage, after some four days I had most my accounts and the project was registered as “incubation – conforming”, so we were ready to go into the parallel IP process.
On project day #12 I submitted my first CQ and, yes, that submission was already the result of heavy refactoring: I had renamed most (not all!!) occurrences of
org.eclipse.objectteams. A piece of cake? Well not exactly if the code piles up to a zip of 35 MBytes (not including .class files and nested archives), and not if your team-support plug-in goes berserk on some of the renamings and if … (see also this post).
Parallel IP process – our version
In fact our version of the parallel IP process looked like this:
|On one thread I was chasing after some people and institutions to just provide the necessary signed statements of code provenance. Wrt the individuals this was painless, however, the university and the research institute involved both had their very specific strategies for delaying the project. All-in-all it took them more than one week per sentence in the final document. Or would you prefer the words-per-day count?||The much feared IP analysis turned out to be a very constructive collaboration with Sharon Corbett. I was really amazed about the obscure pieces of code (and comments) she brought to light, things that I never knew where in there. So that was helpful information, actually 🙂 .
Most of all I was pleased by her quick responsiveness – quite in contrast to the other thread. Thanks Sharon!
I should also thank Jan Wloka who from the outset of the project took care that we’d have copyright headers and that stuff.
The effect was: at the time I got the signatures that cleared us to check our sources into svn the IP analysis was already done and complete! And not only that, during that process we’ve done some significant cleanup.
Code cleanup triggered by the move:
- Proviously, Object Teams used the JMangler framework for launching with our bytecode transformers in place. This was a great thing to have back in the olden Java 1.3 times. But in 2010 our Java 5 based alternative had matured and we didn’t even have to put JMangler into any of our moving boxes 🙂
- We used to maintain a patched version of BCEL 4.4.1 (developed at Freie Universität Berlin, as the namespace
de.fubstill announced). I consulted the AspectJ folks who maintain a patched version, too. But their patch only vaguely resembles the original, and they clearly stated that they saw now chances of these changes being adopted upstream. So, I went back to our sources, checked the patches, checked the current version 5.2 of bcel and found that the remaining bugs could actually be easily worked around from the outside. That’s when I learned the details of Orbit: since our initial commits to Eclipse we never had to bother about the bcel version, it just comes right flying from the Orbit. So we got that legacy version cleared up.
- My heart skipped a tiny single beat, when I learned that one of our most central data structures could not be accepted at Eclipse: I had patched class
WeakHashMapfrom the OpenJDK to create a
DoublyWeakHashMapwith quite unique characteristics concerning garbage collection. We need that! Yet, the license (GPL with “classpath exception”) was not accepted. I made a quick experiment with wrapping instead of patching and guess what I learned (again): while the patched version was created in the pursuit of performance, still, after changing the strategy (to what was destined to be slower) my measurements could not show any performance penalty. So, carve that in stone: never optimize without measuring. The new version has the same performance – and no license issues!
Of course, there were more issues like needing to file a new CQ just for using files like
xhtml1-strict.dtd, but those caused no grief after all. Enter the next phase.
Getting everything to build and test on eclipse servers
OK, when we opened the boxes at our new home, some of the content was actually broken on the way.
Fixing broken builds
The ugliest part was getting an ancient set of PDE/Build scripts to run on build.eclipse.org. Digging through a 30MByte build-log looking for the cause of a build failure never was fun. The point that dissatisfies me with all the build technology I’ve seen so far: You have a build that works on one machine and with one version of the software. Then, one arbitrary piece of the setup changes, let’s take a big change as the example: moving your JDK from 5 to 6. It’s OK that things may break at this point, but the kind of breakage frequently seems to have nothing to do with what you’ve changed, e.g., after moving to a different JDK the compiler can no longer resolve
java.long.Object, whereas everybody knows: that’s not the difference between the two JDKs. The problem is not broken builds, the problem is how little clues the logs give you for finding the root cause of the breakage, or even: telling you how to fix it. A technology that works when it works is one thing. A technology that helps you get it to work is another (and we’re working hard to make Object Teams fall into the second category).
Modernizing the build
OK, enough complained, the move to Eclipse again gave reason to cleanup that monster build and even update to using some of the automatic built-in p2 stuff (yes, finally we use
p2.gathering=true), rather than manually invoking the various p2 applications (publisher, director). When it runs, you may even get the impression you know why it does.
The final round in improving our build was adding bundle signing, yeah! Of course, that’s when all the p2-metadata generated during the build don’t help you any more because those include the checksums of your unsigned jars. So I created a tiny little shell script to automate those steps required after a successful build&test. I ended up with 7 more transformations of our metadata needed at this stage. So we’re back at directly invoking p2 publisher, p2 director, do various XSL transformations etc. Most of these could actually be done by a PDE/Build – p2 integration, but let’s not expect too much, not now.
Did I mention the almost 50000 tests that successfully run during each build? Well, that’s what we owe our users, right?
It builds – let’s ship it!
OK, let’s move ahead to the success-story-part. Less than a month after the initial commit we had our first milestone. It’s so good to be back in business 🙂 After fixing all those migration-induced regressions I’m sure our code has better quality than before.
User side migration
Only one burden we had to pass on to users: due to the changed namespace, the configuration files of existing OT/J projects have to be updated. Luckily, it wasn’t too difficult to add some specific build-path problems and quickfixes, which should make the migration for users pretty smooth.
Right while I was publishing our first milestones a new cool tool came around the corner: the Market Place Client. So, now if you download, e.g., the Helios Package “Eclipse IDE for Java Developers” you’ll get the OTDT installed without having to know the download address, just select Help > Eclipse Marketplace and search for “Object Teams”, and you’re ready to hit “Install“:
Interestingly, in order for this to work I had to ask for this feature, which later down the road triggered this blocker security issue. At the end of the day this made me ponder about generalizing various things that the user might want to know when installing software. And indeed, Object Teams should play an active role in this discussion: the whole business of OT/Equinox is based on the assumption that the user agrees with what we are doing. We already do our best in treating the users as grown-ups who can make their own decisions, if we provide sufficient
This little screenshot tells you a whole story about this version of the bundle
org.eclipse.jdt.core (see last column):
- The icon in the 1st column says: this bundle is signed, but that signed content is going to be woven at load time before the JVM sees it
- Columns 2 & 3 give the obvious information that this is not the version provided by the JDT team but something from the Object Teams project, which BTW. is still in its incubation phase.
- Column 4 finally gives you all the gory details: a sophisticated version number plus the list of OT/Equinox plugins that have declared to adapt the current plugin.
That’s the kind of transparency we show upon request after the software is installed. The mentioned bug 316702 is about providing similar transparency already during install.
So, what’s the plan?
Given that all legal and technical matters have been sorted out to this point, and given that the tool is in an even better shape than the final OTDT 1.4.0 from objectteams.org, what’s our plan?
- Just recently I requested a Release Review, tentatively scheduled for July 7, so with only little delay after Helios we should have an actual, stable release.
- I decided to defer the project graduation some more months to give us time to define which parts of the software are actually API.
Where can I see it in action?
Well, given the current milestone releases (and the ease of installing) and all the documentation we have in the wiki nothing should stop you from running your first Object Teams demo in do-it-yourself mode 🙂
Otherwise, if you happen to be in Vienna on June 25, just come to this DemoCamp and I’ll help you to get started with Object Teams.