geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <>
Subject Re: Unified Tomcat/Jetty Plans
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:56:09 GMT
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Jeremy,
> 	No need to exaggerate.  You can take a friendly tone and still
> make your point.  

Where was I exaggerating? You can also answer without being 
condescending. Anyway, enough with the personal comments.

> 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.

There's "unstable" and there's "unstable" - hopefully common sense would 
say that the first release after a major achievement like CTS complete 
is likely to garner more attention than just another weekly and hence a 
little more care would be in order.

That your changes went in the revision after DB cut that release 
indicates a massive lack of co-ordination in the project.

> 	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?

Do some design work before committing changes? If you send ideas to the 
list first then we can all review them beforehand rather than having to 
deal with the aftermath. Maybe it was just me, but I did not realize 
from your proposal that you were intending to invalidate all existing 

How about just leaving the existing stuff there? That way existing 
applications will continue to work whilst the new stuff is being fleshed 
out. That should actually give you more flexiblity in the run up to 1.0 
to get the unified solution right without interfering with the 
developing user base.

How about defining a common interface for the runtime bits that both 
Jetty and Tomcat runtimes can implement? That should simplify the 
builder code allowing you to support the old schemas with less duplication.

Have you looked at the schema conversion stuff DJ did for the J2CA 
deployment descriptors (the stuff that handles the 1.0 DTD to 1.5 schema 

Non-technical tip: think about the f***ing users. That you needed to 
modify all the TCK plans should have been a BIG HINT that this was not a 
good idea. Think of the other impacts: you still need to update your own 
book's website with the revisions, what about all the other authors?

> 	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.

It would be better to avoid confused Tomcat users in the first place. We 
have what we have on the Tomcat side and I assume there is external doco 
out there on it (as there is for Jetty). Keep that working whilst we 
work out the final form.

As an aside, I think the very presence of Tomcat-specific parameters 
(e.g. TomcatRealm, FirstValve) indicates that the "one plan to rule 
them" model has issues and that the LCD is not good enough. It would be 
useful to continue that discussion.

> 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.

With CTS complete there are a lot of users interested in the project. 
The time for this is NOW. It is not just the technical mechanics, people 
are watching how the project is operating; blatant disregard for 
compatibility is a huge red flag for anyone contemplating anything serious.


View raw message