directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [release] How are we all progressing
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:48:10 GMT
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>> I think it would be nice if we can coordinate a release of most 
>>> projects together this first time.  We really don't have to.  I just 
>>> wanted to get a sense from everyone on where they are for trying to 
>>> release on the week of the 27th right before new years.  I have eve, 
>>> ldap, seda, and snickers almost ready to release at any point with 
>>> minor details that are still lingering out there.
>>> I can even release before then.  So gimme some feedback on naming, 
>>> and janus.  I think we can prepare by requesting permission to 
>>> release from the Incubator PMC.
>> I would like to get a [naming] release out as well.  The core existing 
>> code is certainly stable and well-tested from use in tomcat. To get a 
>> 0.8-ish release out, I think we need to do the following:
> I actually thought you'd want to get a 1.0 out there. Looked to me like 
> naming was pretty much mature.  There's no API changes that are going to 
> happen because it's basically JNDI so its was ok IMHO to get a 1.0 out 
> there.   However I know very little about the state of naming so its 
> just stuff I'm pulling out of my arse at the moment (just a sense).

Unfortunately, I expect that there may be some API changes / 
deprecations in 1.0 -- obviously not in the JNDI APIs but in
a) the way naming contexts are created and associated with threads, 
classloaders and user-defined objects
b) context access control
c) configuration
All of these are now generically usable but really tomcat-centric. Could 
be no incompatible changes will be required; but I think it would be 
wiser at this point to start with a 0.8, then pop 0.9 and 1.0 fairly 
quickly thereafter, incorporating user feedback from the 0.x's to get a 
really solid 1.0.  Sound OK?

>> 1) Settle the jar division issue. Probably end up with 3 or more jars. 
>> This is not a huge issue, but we need to get it right so users have 
>> good flexibility and both building and integrating are easy. I will 
>> keep pestering Hen until he figures it out ;-)
>> 2) Improve the web site and docs -- need better explanation of how the 
>> whole setup works.  Not a huge effort.  I should be able to get this 
>> done in the next couple of weeks.
>> 3) Improve package and source javadocs.  Lots of time could be spent 
>> here; but I can combine this with 2) and get us into decent shape in a 
>> couple of weeks.
>> 4) Clean up the tests and increase coverage to the point where we have 
>> at least some coverage of all key classes / functions.  This is where 
>> I may not be able to get it all done in time for a 2004 release; but I 
>> will do my best.  Once I improve the docs, others may be able to step 
>> in and help here more.
> Yeah this one is a do what you possibly can but I would not let it hold 
> you back.  The more usage we get out of it the more natural coverage we 
> get.  However I see test case coverage as critical mostly for being able 
> to maintain agility while refactoring and making changes knowing you 
> have not broken anything.  

Agreed.  Test cases are also good for validating contracts -- i.e., 
making sure that the code actually does exactly what you think / say it 
does in the javadoc. That is where we need to do some more work in 
[naming], improving both the javadoc and the tests in key areas. I will 
try to get the most essential stuff done quickly so it does not hold up 
the release.


> Overall this is great.  BTW we're trying to shoot for like the week of 
> the 27th to release so we can start a fresh new year :)!  Is that 
> possible you think?

At this point, possible yes.  Will no more by the end of this week.

> Alex

View raw message