geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: Session API in 1.1 trunk?
Date Mon, 22 May 2006 18:50:48 GMT
Jeff, I believe you get to vote also, so you had three before alan  
voted (although david didn't put an official "+1" in the email).   :)

Ken, please correct me if I'm wrong.

-dain

On May 22, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> Let me follow this up too with some support...
>
> JIRA GERONIMO-2046 is a patch (by Bill Dudney) for the first swipe at
> full replication using the session API.  I want to apply the patch to
> place the code into the sandbox, but I need the session API available.
> We will need it in the new trunk, and thus was asking that it be  
> merged
> for the new trunk from 1.2, so that we may push forward with this  
> first
> swipe, since its a dependency.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> I think I have 2 +1s (Dain and DJ)...need one more ;-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> Let me make myself clear from my original message, since I think  
>> there
>> is confusion as to what I was asking:
>>
>> When I referred to 1.1, I placed into parenthesis, "the new trunk
>> version that is".
>>
>> I only have intentions of it going into *some* trunk, assuming it  
>> will
>> be the newly branded trunk based on 1.1.  I did not want to build  
>> this
>> off of 1.2-dead for obvious reasons.
>>
>> I do *not* at all mean that this should go in the 1.1 release, and I
>> would -1 that myself...I just want it in the new trunk when its cut.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> +1 to merge it to the new trunk.
>>>
>>> -0.5 to merge it into 1.1... I don't see any ready to move it  
>>> into 1.1.
>>> There are no users or implementations yet.  If someone writes one  
>>> for
>>> 1.1, they can ship a plugin containing the session apis.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On May 22, 2006, at 10:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm fine with it going into trunk after 1.1 is branched.  I'm  
>>>> not at
>>>> all fine with it going into 1.1 and getting released in 1.1: I  
>>>> don't
>>>> think we should release an api that has not been  proved to work  
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put into the  
>>>>> sandbox, but
>>>>> will have a need for the session api ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone have issue with putting the session API in 1.1 (the new  
>>>>> trunk
>>>>> version that is)? (Need 3 +1s)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff


Mime
View raw message