db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Mahler <thm...@web.de>
Subject Re: [kernel refactoring] What do you think about
Date Sun, 23 May 2004 10:02:45 GMT
Hi Armin,

I think making the internal changes before the next RC is OK!
I just wrote a mail to the PMC members to vote for new canditates.
I hope we get them trough this time.

if we have enough ojb committers on the pmc voting for a 1.0 release 
will be much easier. I hope it works this time.

About the new rc: shall I assemble a new release today?
or should i wait until you've checked in your internal changes?
I'll have some free time in the next week, so I can assemble the release 
whenenver you say "go".

There is still 1 failure in the pb junit tests:
testReportPathExpressionForExtents2
Failure
check size expected:<3> but was:<2>

  junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: check size expected:<3> but was:<2>
  at 
org.apache.ojb.broker.QueryTest.testReportPathExpressionForExtents2(QueryTest.java:1135)
  at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
  at 
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
  at 
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)

any ideas?

cheers,
thomas



Armin Waibel wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> ok, seems I don't have a change to get this stuff in ;-)
> 
> Nevertheless I adjure to vote for check in of the internal changes 
> (without PB-api changes) before next RC. This will prepare 1.0 for 
> future enhancements and will keep 1.0.x code more consistent with 1.1.
> We have nearly 700 junit tests this should allow us a continuous 
> development. Now have said all I have to say ;-)
> 
> An alternative will be to make an 1.0 branch this weekend, so I can 
> check in this stuff in 1.1 trunk (additionally I have much more stuff 
> for 1.1 wait for check in).
> But features like IdentityFactory, enable/disable caching at runtime and 
> two level cache will be useful in 1.0.x too. But I don't see a change to 
> implement this in 1.0.x again or do a backward port from trunk (because 
> one day only has 24 hours ;-)).
> 
> 
> regards,
> Armin
> 
> Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 22 May 2004, Brian McCallister wrote:
>>
>>
>>> +1 on all changes, but let's push 1.0 first. This gives us (more) 
>>> major incentive to get 1.0 out the door Real Soon Now (tm).
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 on finishing 1.0 first, then tackle all pending improvements (Cache,
>> ODMG stuff, ...)
>>  
>>
>>> Frankly, I wouldn't let doc reorg hold back 1.0 though. We can push 
>>> new versions of docs independently of releases.
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 with the exception of the beginners docs - they should be in the 
>> 1.0 as
>> IMO they are the single most important part of the docs. All advanced
>> issues can - and probably will - be discussed on the user list, but
>> someone interested will only read this (and the website), so this is the
>> only chance to convince him of the quality of OJB.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org


Mime
View raw message