geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: [vote] PMC to accept DayTrader contribution and/or/not create "application" subproject
Date Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:18:12 GMT
9C34-DFE92D82FE44@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <DDDB5BF8-6316-4639-9C34-DFE92D82FE44@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As matt@hogstrom.org
X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1

Day trader will evolve over time to incorporate new standards (J2EE 5.0) 
      and will also be expanded to incorporate different non-J2EE 
features (Hibernate is one option).  Regardless of where it is Day 
trader needs to have a specific release so performance comparisons will 
have some relevance.

At a minimum we should probably release the EAR and deployment plans 
with Geronimo for given Milestones / releases so there is a stable 
reference for the release.  I suggest we incorporate the source code 
with the ear so that becomes the reference source as well.

David's point is spot on as the deployment plans and other factors 
affect Day Trader so that is an issue.  I think if we start it off with 
Geronimo makes sense and we course correct if we need to.

Matt

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
> On Sep 21, 2005, at 12:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> 
>> My concern is primarily with  the geronimo plan.  While presumably  
>> the app itself isn't going to need to change to be deployed to  other 
>> app servers, I expect each server to need a separate plan.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be part of the DayTrader project to maintain, since  they 
> know what they need to deploy, and that may change over time?
> 
>> I was thinking we'd keep the app and geronimo plan together in  synch 
>> with the geronimo version.  Obviously this is not ideal, but  I 
>> haven't thought of a better solution.  Maybe have the app  separate 
>> and a module in geronimo/apps to build a configuration for  the 
>> current geronimo version?
> 
> 
> Or just force the people working on DayTrader to follow, or stablize  
> our plan :)
> 
> I see what you're saying.
> 
> (My biggest concern with asking the question was to see if it was  
> because people had different ideas about how "heavy" a subproject was.)
> 
> geir
> 
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm just curious what people expect to happen here.    I'm happy  to 
>>> go with the flow, but at least want to understand the flow.
>>>
>>> DayTrader is an application that is used as a performance tool for  
>>> any J2EE server, so it's not Geronimo only. (Contrast that with  the 
>>> console, as an example.)  It makes little sense to me to tie  it to 
>>> Geronimo releases no matter what the stability of Geronimo.   We can 
>>> use it to measure Geronimo against other servers, and  should use it 
>>> daily to ensure that we don't regress performance- wise.  To do that, 
>>> I think we'd want to have a released version of  it, so we could at 
>>> compare apples to apples.  The tools can't vary  freely and randomly 
>>> with the code we're trying to test....   Matt  would have a better 
>>> perspective, I guess.
>>>
>>> Instead of a new subproject, which people seem to find a bad idea  
>>> for reasons I don't grok - as it's just out of SVN trunk, has  
>>> separate release cycles from G server, and has some mention on the  
>>> website - how about at least putting it into devtools?  Can we  avoid 
>>> adding to the clutter of trunk, something we seemed to  support 
>>> earlier today?
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:48 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> +1  Accept the DayTrader donation into the project
>>>> -1  Do not create Applications subproject.  Leave in trunk.
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 20, 2005, at 4:28 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>> > (Keep it simple for now.  Review this later when Geronimo is  more 
>>>> stable.  I think
>>>> > it is too early to try to have applications with their own  
>>>> release cycle)
>>>>
>>>> Well put.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>>> geirm@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message