Yep this is an option too. Emmanuel has some ideas as well such as writing translators from old server.xml to
new one. But I'm not keen on this.
Our problem is we are treating 1.5 branch as if it were a stable branch and not using it for hard core experimental
work anymore since we're driving users towards it since it just blows 1.0 away. This puts us into the dilemma of
dealing with the woes of users.
I guess we can just say hey this is an experimental branch that you have to deal with changes to. WDYT?
On 9/25/07, Alex Karasulu < email@example.com> wrote:Hi all,
Chris Custine and David Jencks have been advising the removal of the configuration beans to
directly wire up components in the server. I think they're right after seeing just how many problems
the present configuration bean setup causes. Also this will not happen immediately if it does in
one shot. The progression will be gradual.
However doing this has a huge impact and I want everyone to be aware of them. First and foremost
the way users embed the server will change. The server.xml file will completely change as well so
this may disappoint our users who have been using 1.5.x releases since they are more stable than
1.0.x even though 1.5.x is labeled as experimental.
So it is obvious from a technical standpoint that this must be done. The remaining question is when.
Should we just get 2.0 out ASAP so users have something and start immediately on a 2.5? So this
is a question that our users and team must answer. If yes then we need to figure out what to stuff
into 2.0 before it goes out. We can even start 2.5 in a separate branch before 2.0 is out the door if
people want to just go hog wild with these changes yet brace our users from them.
I dislike the idea of maintaining three different branches of the server. I suggest making this change before releasing 2.0 and writing a complete "what's changed?" guide.Thoughts?