geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: Poll: Resolve configId Versions for 1.0.1
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:16:55 GMT
If you're deploying a JMS resource, whether at the top level of the
server or as part of the application, isn't it best to put a parent of
geronimo/activemq-broker/1.0/car?  I would certainly think so
(definitely want the broker started before the app!).  The same may
not be true for JDBC (if you're not using Derby), but I think it would
be true for anything that ultimately depends on LDAP (such as a
security relam) using the embedded Directory server.  I'm not so sure
about CORBA.  We dodged this on ServiceMix by separating that out for
the time being.  But we currently also have the issues in GBean names,
so any GBeans with references to things like ServerInfo will also have
the problem.

I guess I might be willing to be dragged kicking and screaming into
1.0.1 without a fix for this, but I sure wouldn't feel good about it. 
This seems to me to be similar to changing our deployment plan schemas
and saying "well, you know, the elements we removed weren't used that
much anyway."  I know if we were going to do that we'd have a
converter in place so that old plans wouldn't actually break.


On 1/24/06, David Jencks <> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > On 1/24/06, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
> >> Why do the version numbers change for patches?  Shouldn't this be
> >> backward compatible?
> >
> > That the first option in the poll -- to make the configIds retain the
> > version number 1.0 even though the rest of the server marches on to
> > 1.0.1.  Currently, the version for each configId is based on the
> > Geronimo version number, so everything was incremented to
> > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT (and ultimately 1.0.1) together.
> >
> > However, even if we select this as the short term (1.0.1) solution, I
> > don't think it's a general solution.  I don't think people should have
> > to change their plans to go from 1.0.x to 1.1x or even to 2.x unless
> > we actually change the schemas in a non-backward-compatible way (and
> > even if we did that we'd usually provide a converter to silently
> > update a plan using the old format to the new format, but the schema
> > converters don't currently touch embedded data like configIds).
> >
> > My 2 cents is that the long-term solution should somehow involve the
> > version number being optional, so you can use it if you feel strongly
> > about it (running big server farm, want to force everything to be
> > identical) and omit it if you would prefer to maximize compatibility.
> I think we might be able to remove /car from the configId: it's
> optional IIUC in the maven format and I think we can always infer it
> from the context.
> Making the version optional in plan references (parentId but not
> configId) might work.  If we do, we have to decide when the version
> is resolved: at deploy time or at runtime.  Deploy time will give
> fewer chances for runtime class mismatches but runtime will require
> fewer redeployments.
> Any change of configId format is going to require a very painful
> change of all the J2eeModule keys in gbean references in our plans.
> In my experience it takes several days and iterations to find and
> change all of them.
> If we make the version optional we are going to have to change the
> jsr-77 names for every gbean so that the xxxModule is something like
> groupId/artifactId and presumably supply a separate key for version.
> We might be able to just change the xxxModule key and leave the
> version for later, thus preventing anyone from running 2 versions of
> the same app at the same time using just differently versioned plans.
> I still think it might be wiser to spend our time in 1.0.1 removing
> excess parentIds and trying to eliminate cases when you need to
> specify them.  I think that might well result in an overall improved
> user experience.
> For instance, some of the uses mentioned recently are:
> jdbc.  A user app should not be using the system database, so
> deploying the connector with the app is a better solution
> jms Similarly, I think the amq connector is an example and perhaps we
> should not be deploying it by default.  I would expect any actual use
> of jms to use its own amq plan, probably deployed with the app.  In
> any case it would not be versioned with geronimo and should not need
> any geronimo versions in the plan
> corba config I have come to realize that the sample corba configs we
> ship are pretty much a mistake.  Any real usage is going to require
> configuring tss and css beans with the actual security the app needs,
> not the toy stuff we supply configured by default.  The tss and css
> beans should really go with the app using them.
> thanks
> david jencks
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Aaron

View raw message