geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Unified Tomcat/Jetty Plans
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:38:20 GMT
	I went ahead and added a separate helper class that detects the
bad namespace and switches it to the new one.  Unfortunately there's a bit
of code in the builder just to detect the plan with a different name, but
it should be easy enough to back out later.

Aaron

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, David Jencks wrote:
> Rather than adding code to the builders to accept obsolete schema 
> versions, I would rather provide a standalone tool to update old plans. 
>   I don't want to get into the business of supporting 
> non-formally-released obsolete formats forever.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Jul 3, 2005, at 11:14 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > thanks
> > 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message