geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What do we do about fixable problems in M5?
Date Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:45:59 GMT

On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:

>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> I think there's two different types of problems here that are  
>>> being  confused.
>>>
>>> The first is a few configuration issues with the zip image that   
>>> Stefan (in the tomcat config.xml) and Matt (with the TranQL and   
>>> DB2) have discovered.  There may be more of these but these  
>>> types  of issues that arise but they are *not* issues which 100%  
>>> of  customers will hit.  For these types of problems I think that  
>>> an  errata on the download page should suffice (with individual   
>>> replacement modules and directions).
>>>
>>> The second is another issue that Stefan discovered which  
>>> involves  the installer.  This is the type of thing that can  
>>> affect a lot of  users and may be something that would cause us  
>>> to create an M6.   However, since the installer is itself a  
>>> unique download do we  really have to build another M6 to replace  
>>> it?  Can't we just build  a new installer off the M5 image with  
>>> changes to the installer  alone that should not affect the TCK  
>>> results?  If possible I think  this would be a better solution  
>>> than dropping it completely from M5.
>>>
>> I don't think we're advocating dropping it - just redoing it...
>>
>
> I meant potentially dropping it from M5 (as Kevan alluded to) ...  
> not from history.  :-)
>
>
>>>
>>> Another idea would be to just add some very "in your face"   
>>> statements around the download link for the installer itself.   
>>> Does  Apache regulate what you can and cannot include on the  
>>> download page?
>>>
>>>
>> The geronimo download page is governed by the project.  How "in  
>> your  face" are you thinking here?
>> Probably don't want "If you use this, your (@!#@!@-ed, and if you   
>> don't like it, you can go *(@#!@*@!#)!@#"
>> :D
>>
>
> I wasn't thinking that kind of "in your face"  :-)    Rather,  
> something along the lines of:
> %link%   this is an executable JAR, so install it using java -jar  
> geronimo-1.0-M5-installer.jar.
> WARNING: If no selections are made in the installation both  
> containers will be included with common (colliding) port numbers.  
> It is recommended that you choose either Tomcat-only, Jetty-only,  
> or explicitly specify the ports for each container.

Sure!  That's easy.  But isn't there another problem w/ the  
installer?  Can we put the additional errata there?

geir

>
>
>> geir
>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Without a really big disclaimer on the download page, my guess  
>>>> is  that approximately 100% of new-to-Geronimo M5 Installer  
>>>> users will  run into this problem. All you have to do is keep  
>>>> hitting "Next".  I did. I just never started my "installed"  
>>>> server, because I'd  already tested the zipped/tarred version of  
>>>> code (my mistake).
>>>> I don't think an errata is sufficient and I don't see how we  
>>>> can  ignore such a visible issue. This may be a bit heretical,  
>>>> but one  option is not to release the installer. Although this  
>>>> is a server  issue, you don't hit this problem in normal usage  
>>>> when running  from an zip/tar "install" (at least I haven't run  
>>>> into any other  problems, am I missing something?).
>>>> Most first-time users will choose the install download thinking   
>>>> they're making their lives easier, when actually, they've just   
>>>> made their lives more difficult. Although some last-minute hard   
>>>> work went into the installer, IMO, the M5 installer is of  
>>>> limited  value for first-time Geronimo users. I also think that  
>>>> the current  installer is actually a configuration utility in  
>>>> disguise -- we  should start separating concerns...
>>>> BTW, I assume that actually fixing the underlying problem means   
>>>> rerunning the TCK tests? Thus the reticence for fixing?
>>>> --kevan
>>>> On 10/5/05, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geirm@apache.org   
>>>> <mailto:geirm@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>     On Oct 5, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>      > I think that will work but users won't find Geronimo   
>>>> incredibly
>>>>      > useful if they have to pull a whole new build to fix a  
>>>> single
>>>>     problem.
>>>>     Which will work?
>>>>     i think the errata is necessary so people will know what to   
>>>> do.  As
>>>>     for a quick M6?  I think it depends on the %-age of people   
>>>> that will
>>>>     hit the problem.
>>>>      > I discovered a similar problem in TranQL that the 1.1  
>>>> SNAPSHOT
>>>>      > doesn't generate the right SQL syntax for DB2 and had to   
>>>> tweak the
>>>>      > Syntax Generator.  So the option going forward is for   
>>>> someone to
>>>>      > pull TranQL 1.2-SNAPSHOT which wil most likely break  
>>>> their  build
>>>>      > too because of the serialization problem (probably not   
>>>> likely with
>>>>      > my example but a high probability for other types of fixes).
>>>>     Does this mean as of now, we have a problem w/ DB2?
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Sachin had the right idea of highlighting the issues with
>>>>      > serialVersionUIDs but that was part of a larger  
>>>> problem.   I'll open
>>>>      > a feature JIRA that focuses on improved serviceability   
>>>> which would
>>>>      > encompass these recurring issues and we'll look for  
>>>> someone  to step
>>>>      > up to the plate and put a strategy together.
>>>>      >
>>>>     yes, I think that's a different (but very important) issue   
>>>> altogether.
>>>>      > Thoughts?
>>>>      >
>>>>     Go man, go...
>>>>      > - Matt
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>      >
>>>>      >> On Oct 4, 2005, at 11:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>> Stefan Schmidt has found our first configuration  
>>>> problem  in M5,
>>>>      >>> namely that the listener name in the ejb builder in
>>>>      >>> config.tomcat.xml points half to tomcat and half to   
>>>> jetty.  This
>>>>      >>> is easy to fix by hand (change JettyWebContainer to
>>>>      >>> TomcatWebContainer).  However I doubt we want to   
>>>> rerelease M5 to
>>>>      >>> fix this.  What do we want to do about issues like  
>>>> this?   One
>>>>      >>> possibility is to have an "errata" page clearly linked
  
>>>> from the
>>>>      >>> download page.
>>>>      >>>
>>>>      >> That's a great idea.
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>>   There must be some other possibilities, any ideas?
>>>>      >>>
>>>>      >> 1) Can we capture this as some kind of functional test  
>>>> to  prevent
>>>>      >> from happening again?
>>>>      >> 2) how long would it take to fix on branch/m5 (and  
>>>> head)  and do a
>>>>      >> M6  tag off of branch/m5 (if people don't find that too
>>>>      >> nauseating) and  release that?
>>>>      >> geir
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>     --
>>>>     Geir Magnusson Jr                                    
>>>> +1-203-665-6437
>>>>     geirm@apache.org <mailto:geirm@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Joe Bohn
>>> joe.bohn@earthlink.net
>>>
>>> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he   
>>> cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -- 
> Joe Bohn
> joe.bohn@earthlink.net
>
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he  
> cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message