geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Wilkins <>
Subject Re: -1 on checkin of 368344 was Re: [wadi-dev] Clustering: WADI/Geronimo integrations.
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:32:16 GMT


Can you please calm down?   I'm trying to discuss your concerns, but 
you appear to be taking offence that I'm doing so?  

These are not my changes - I'm just an interested observer on this one
trying to interpret the arguments that have been put forward!

> Greg, based on the fact that I -1'd Jan's inclusion of Axion on 1/5, and
> it was never tended too,

Your concern was address.  Jan removed the dependency and put the jar back
into the webapp.   But that was for a per webapp clustering solution.
It has generally been discussed an agreed to move towards a
per container clustering configuration.

> 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:

As far as I understand it, axion is used to persist the session.   There
has been plenty of discussion about this and if it is appropriate or not.
At the very least WADI should probably be changed to use derby which is
now used by geronimo.  But as of today, axion is a dependency of WADI
and we want WADI to be a container rather than a webapp service.

If what you say is true - that it is not a dependency, then just remove
the dependency 9rather than everything) and it should work!  I think
you will find that wadi does not work without it.

> The hard code of the wadi manager...

It is not hard coded.  It is just a reasonable default value and it
is loosely coupled as it is just a class name.    The commit removed
a real hard dependency on WADIGBean so the change is less coupled to 

> the Axion dependency, 

Discussed to death.   You initial -1 was address when we went back 
to a per-app config.   It is a container dependency and so it has been
moved.   Now you may argue that WADI could use persistence services
in a better way - but that is an issue for WADI not geronimo.

> lack of pluggable configuration, 

The configuration is pluggable.  Only the default is hard coded.

> lack of ability to set Clustering options (properties) at the clustering 
> component level.

Yes we all agree that a clustering GBean is needed for configuration.
It will be the place to have lots of clustering options configured.
If you think you can get this done by 1.0.1 - then great! you can
then take the session managers config out of the container plans.

> 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.

I don't understand.  David commented in this thread?   The issues and
suggestions he raised are being discussed?   

> Lets move on guys...we all should be moving forward here and stop
> dwelling on this.

I'm sorry Jeff, but just because you have -1'd a commit does not
mean that the discussion is over and that these changes will never
go in.   Unless it is understood why you did your -1, then how
is anybody going to proceed.   

Alternately, you could post some proposals or code of your own as 
to how to fix the change or how to achieve the results some other

And finally again - I just don't understand your tone and why you
are so worked up - its just configuration for XXXX-sake?  

View raw message