geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: Unified Tomcat/Jetty Plans
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:17:57 GMT
	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 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.


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