geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Boynes" <jer...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject RE: Geronimo Deployment Descriptors
Date Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:24:38 GMT
> From: Aaron Mulder [mailto:ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu] 
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > I am reluctant to back out the current code as we don't have an 
> > alternative at this time and so other stuff that depends on 
> being able 
> > to load DDs will break. I suggest we stay with what we have 
> until an 
> > alternative is available and then restart this discussion then.
> 
> 	Regardless of the technical merits, I think it's 
> procedurally wrong to call for a (vetoable) vote, get vetoed, 
> and then claim that in effect the vetos don't count because 
> you've already committed the code.  
> Until the -1s are retracted, I think we have to assume that 
> the code should be removed, right?
> 

I didn't call for a vote, just feedback on the approach. I also think
its wrong to veto a change without having an alternative available - if
I was changing something that already worked it would be different, but
we didn't have anything.

> 	I'm also a bit confused as to why you don't think 
> there's an alternative -- if you apply the code I sent 
> originally (we could piece the loader back together from JIRA 
> 67 & 68, the EJB POJOs haven't changed, and the J2EE POJOs 
> would be simple enough to restore), you get a Geronimo EJB DD 
> that's separate from the J2EE EJB DD.  I could send another patch if 
> that would be helpful.
> 

Applying that code would not get us to where we are now. It had loaders
for the two different models, but nothing for matching them up and
getting the data into a form where something like the
ComponentContextBuilder could work on it. It was trying to add that
stuff that made change approach.

If you want to pursue that as an alternative, perhaps in conjunction
with Greg's proposal for overlays, that would be cool.

> 	On the technical merits, my preference would be to 
> pursue this conversation a little longer (now) and resolve 
> the issue and put it behind us.
> 

Then let's do that :-) 

But let's not stop dead in the water while we debate.

--
Jeremy


Mime
View raw message