geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Remaining 1.1 Issues
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 03:07:21 GMT
+1 #2

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> So what alan is point out is I just suggested we add one more feature.  
> I agree that this is another feature, so what do we want to do?  I think 
> we have three choices:
> 
> 1) My idea below, isolate the broken porlets to an "experimental" section
> 
> 2) Just remove the broken portlets
> 
> 3) Fix the broken portlets
> 
> 
> I'm +1 on option 1 or 2.  I don't care which option we choose.
> 
> -dain
> 
> On May 23, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> 
>> /me mumbles something about roses...
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> How about we create an "experimental" section of the console menu, 
>>> that only displays if you click the "show experimental" link (I'd 
>>> guess it can all be done with java script on the browser side).  I 
>>> remember for 1.0 we removed a lot of portlets, but I think it would 
>>> be ok to include most of them as long as we set the expectation that 
>>> they are not finished works.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On May 22, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here are the things that I still want to squeeze into 1.1:
>>>> - fix console JMS to accept new providers at runtime
>>>> - fix console security realms to accept new providers at runtime
>>>> - add a missing Geronimo security provider to console security realms
>>>> - fix hot deploy dir so it notices files updated while the server was
>>>> down and deletes files if they are undeployed some other way
>>>>
>>>> There are also AFAIK a number of not-yet-applied patches to review.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>    Aaron
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message