geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Schmidt <schmidt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Disagreements regarding inclusion of Tomcat/Jetty Picker in M4 QA branch
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:54:47 GMT
Ok here it goes :-)

I am apparently one of the few (non-commiter) persons who had the 
pleasure to try a few things on the M4 QA using Tomcat. I tried this 
yesterday and had a lengthly discussion with Jeff.

1. It took me 5 attempts to get the commenting/uncommenting of the DD's 
right, since I wasn't aware that a comment ending '--->' doesn't lead to 
a successful compilation (actually the last three attempts were needed 
to find the places where I did this wrong :-) ). Quite a bit frustrating 
but probably my fault.

2. I am not too sure at the moment if new users really need Tomcat that 
much anyway, I think the Jetty container works just as well (at least 
for me), so I think putting the switch into (a hopefully soon arriving) 
M5 is perfectly fine for me. IF there is someone EXTREMELY interested in 
Tomcat he can still do it manually.

3. Maybe I understand this wrong, but isn't it possible to offer two M4 
binary versions (one with Jetty perconfigured, and one with Tomcat)? The 
new feature in M5 will then be that the user decides during installation 
(izpack) which config he wants, so we don't need two binary versions 
anymore... Maybe I got this wrongly, but if I got this right then I 
don't understand this discussion :-).

Just a side remark, yesterday (after successful building of the Tomcat 
version) we discovered a bug in the Tomcat codebase. To solve this  and 
get it into M4 is more important for me. What's the point delivering 
Tomcat through a nice installation feature in M4 but with a bug that 
prevents the deployment of my application...

Hope this helped,

Stefan


Bruce Snyder wrote:

>On 7/20/05, Jeremy Boynes <jboynes@apache.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>Jeff Genender wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Ok...fair enough...then how far out would M5 be (estimates)?  IMHO,
>>>waiting for the time between M3->M4 cannot be between M4-> M5.  If it is
>>>going to be that long, then +1000 to get it in now.  If its a fairly
>>>short period, then waiting will not be a big deal.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Blevins was talking about release early, often. Adding this change in
>>can only delay M4 and as we are talking M5 in just a few weeks I would
>>say stick with the current branch and use this as an incentive to get M5
>>out soon.
>>    
>>
>
>I'd like to hear some opinions from community members who are not
>committers. If you are reading this message and you are not a
>committer, PLEASE SPEAK UP! We want to hear your opinion on this
>matter.
>
>Bruce 
>  
>


Mime
View raw message