geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Unified Tomcat/Jetty Plans
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 06:14:45 GMT

On Jul 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> Jeremy,
> 	No need to exaggerate.  You can take a friendly tone and still
> make your point.  No one's saying that altering configuration formats 
> is a
> "good" thing, just that it will steadily get "worse" the more stable 
> the
> server gets.  And note that an "unstable" release is exactly that -- we
> need a well-documented Milestone 4 release to direct new users to.  In 
> the
> mean time, I'm trying to set up a weekly build environment here, so
> hopefully I'll put up a fresh "unstable" release from that tomorrow.
> 	Finally, as for the extra mile, I have no idea how to get
> XMLBeans to accept an XML file that could contain one of two 
> namespaces,
> but is otherwise identical in content (to handle old Jetty files).  Any
> constructive tips?

I think this is fairly easy to do using an xmlcursor.  I do a lot of it 
in SchemaConversionUtils to convert the namespace of the embedded 
naming and security elements to their actual namespaces.

If we add this I think we should print a loud warning that the behavior 
will not be supported forever.
> 	I suppose for Tomcat we could implement a schema converter that
> would turn the Tomcat-specific elements into container-config elements,
> but this seems like a lot of work.  If we get a lot of feedbcak from
> confused Tomcat users I'll be happy to look into if further.

I would think that the tomcat integration is new enough so we don't 
have to worry about this.

david jencks

> Aaron
> P.S. To address Dain's comment, I think he'd agree we need to call a
> moratorium on config changes once we reach a certain level of pre-1.0
> stability -- perhaps RC builds or whatever.
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> So let me get this right ...
>> * announce to the world we pass the CTS tests and put out an unstable
>>    release
>> * just when people are looking at the project, change the deployment
>>    plans in an incompatible way
>> * don't provide any upgrade tool, just tell users they need
>>    to edit all their existing plans
>> * tell them this is a *good* thing because we're going to keep
>>    changing things until 1.0 finally comes out
>> And this is somehow supposed to encourage people to use this software?
>> Aaron, I appreciate what you are trying to do. Please go the extra 
>> mile
>> and make sure existing plans continue to work - it is not hard to do 
>> and
>> will avoid putting off a lot of potential users.
>> --
>> Jeremy
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> +100000000 before we release 1.0 is the exactly when we should be
>>> encouraging this type of drastic change.  After 1.0 comes out, I  
>>> doubt
>>> we will be able to make these type of changes until 2.0.  I  think we
>>> should review all of our configuration files and make
>>> usability/consistency changes before we even consider a 1.0.
>>> -dain
>>> On Jul 3, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>>>> Won't this cause a problem for users, having to modify all existing
>>>>> plans to accomodate this change?
>>>>     Sure.  But we've already agreed on the need for a single web
>>>> deployment format, and I don't think it makes sense to support 3  
>>>> formats
>>>> to try to ease transition.  This is one of many configuration  
>>>> changes
>>>> that
>>>> will be necessary in moving from Milestone 3 to Milestone 4.
>>>> Hopefully we
>>>> can minimize this kind of thing moving forward into more stable
>>>> releases,
>>>> but I'm not sure we're entirely there yet.
>>>>     I'll make sure the Wiki docs are up to date.
>>>> Aaron

View raw message