geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject Re: -1 on checkin of 368344 was Re: [wadi-dev] Clustering: WADI/Geronimo integrations.
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:46:33 GMT
Jeff Genender wrote:

>First off...lets get over this...DJ has a great thread open.  I really
>don't want to continue this discussion as its wasting all of our time.
>Comments in line...and this is it for responding to this nonsense...time
>to move on...ok?
>  
>

Jeff,

you cannot, on the one hand, accuse people of not discussing things with 
you and, on the other, dismiss their comments as "nonsense".

Jules

>Greg Wilkins wrote:
>  
>
>>Jeff Genender wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I am sorry Jules, I am -1 on the change and I stand firm on that.
>>>      
>>>
>>Jeff,
>>
>>I don't understand your total -1, nor the fact that you actually backed 
>>out the change before anybody could reply to your email.
>>    
>>
>
>Greg, based on the fact that I -1'd Jan's inclusion of Axion on 1/5, and
>it was never tended too, am I to believe the same would have occurred
>here?  If you think I should have waited a few days, then perhaps I
>could have.  But based on past history with you guys and handling -1s, I
>don't think it was unreasonable for me to think that you weren't going
>to remove it.  Its now a full week (1/5-1/12) after the -1, and it has
>not been removed.  How long is a reasonable time to wait for you to back
>out -1s?
>
>  
>
>>I sat in the room with Jules and Jan for three days while they worked on this.  
>>They certainly were discussing all the threads about this and they tried 
>>several times for a more minimal solution (name spaces etc.) but 
>>nothing else proved workable.
>>    
>>
>
>That, in and of itself is the problem Greg.  Lets bring this out on the
>lists, not in a room with Jules, Jan, and yourself. Jules said, "Jan and
>Greg are staying with me for a few days, starting monday. We will go
>through the integration together and keep the list up to date with any
>issues that we find."
>
>He never brought the discussion as he stated, and then followed it up
>today (1/12) with: "Jan and I have just refactored the Geronimo Jetty
>and Tomcat integrations to take the same approach to the installation of
>a 3rd party session manager, to ease the integration of WADI. This is
>now checked in on Geronimo's trunk."
>
>Where was the list up to date on discussion of what you have found,
>relative to the requests we made previously on the lists about what we
>want to see in the integration?  Am I missing something here?
>
>  
>
>>So they moved one aspect of the config out of the WEB-INF  and as a result 
>>they were able to get a webapp deployed on a mixed cluster of geronimo-jetty 
>>and geronimo-tomcat - HOORAY!
>>    
>>
>
>Great...lets chat about it...I am all for open discussion on this! Lets
>see what they came up with...and work with the ideas into something that
>is a good solution for the team and community!  But I wouldn't say the
>change  (one aspect) was that simple from an impact perspective, Greg.
>
>  
>
>>They deserve thanks for a good achievement and some peer review to
>>help them improve it.   The certainly don't deserve unilateral action
>>to erase their work and send every body back to square -1.
>>    
>>
>
>Peer review?  And where did that occur?  See the above comments about
>Jules working with you on this, then checking it all in.  I saw no peer
>review.  Remember, this is an Apache project (Geronimo)...you should be
>sharing info with the community.
>
>Nobody said it wasn't a valiant attempt, nor that the intentions weren't
>good.  Based on the Axion issues, one of my -1s has nothing to do with
>intentions, it has to do with putting the database hard coded dependency
>in the container.  That is a serious architectural flaw.  I -1'd that on
>the Jetty side as well.
>
>If you needed to try things out...and get a review afterwards, why
>didn't you just cut a quick branch and show off your changes?  Nobody
>would have -1d that.
>
>  
>
>>I agree with David that the session manager configuration should be moved 
>>again to  a clustering GBean, but that does not mean that we should move it back 
>>to WEB-INF while we wait for a better solution. This was a minimal solution
>>that can be put in place in time for 1.0.1. We don't have time to create
>>a clustering module before then. 
>>    
>>
>
>Greg, I think the point here is we all need to discuss this before doing
>this.  The Apache way, remember?  If you all discussed this openly,
>perhaps the config could be built by now, yes?
>
>  
>
>>As for the axion dependancy, I do believe this is a container dependancy.
>>Axion is being used to persist the session - which is a web container
>>function, not a webapp function.   We had discussed this and I thought you had 
>>agreed with me on this point - that we should not have to put WADI dependancies 
>>into WEB-INF/lib of the apps so they can be clustered.
>>    
>>
>
>Greg, that is a complete fabrication of the truth.  I am sorry Greg, I
>never agreed with Axion being in the container.  I did agree with the
>ability to inject the clustering as a pluggable configuration at the
>container or context level.  That is as far as I agreed.  If we need a
>connector (READ: RAR) to be used for the database, then this is
>fine...its a pluggable component.  But as a hard code, its simply wrong.
>
>As for Axion being used to persist the session and is a container
>dependency, I disagree...lets look at where axion is being used in WADI:
>
>./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/sandbox/jcache/TestJCache.java
>./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/activecluster/TestCluster.java
>./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestContextualiser.java
>./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestGianni.java
>./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestMotables.java
>./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestReplication.java
>./modules/itest/src/test/java/org/codehaus/wadi/itest/ContainerTestDecorator.java
>
>These are all test cases Greg.  I am not understanding why its not using
>a connector if it needs a database.
>
>  
>
>>Of you 4 points, which is the one that is driving your -1?  Ie, if point
>>4) is address (not clashing with tomcat clustering), is that sufficient?
>>I do think that 1,2 and 3 have been addressed and none seam worth a -1 in
>>any case.
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry, I don't think any of the points have been addressed at all.  You
>want a list, here are some: The hard code of the wadi manager...the
>Axion dependency, lack of pluggable configuration, lack of ability to
>set Clustering options (properties) at the clustering component level.
>Shall I go on?
>
>I think we have been through this.  Lets stop this nonsense and move
>forward on an open discussion with David Jencks' thread.  I think if we
>can concentrate on the positive aspects, we can get this properly going.
> Can we work together as a team, Greg?
>
>Lets move on guys...we all should be moving forward here and stop
>dwelling on this.
>
>  
>
>>regards
>>
>>    
>>


-- 
"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."

/**********************************
 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)
 *
 *    www.coredevelopers.net
 *
 * Open Source Training & Support.
 **********************************/


Mime
View raw message