Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of paulmcmahan@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.171 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=F5WQptbq8vmLbFR/zX0lnuwjbhIJCbZPP7Jd5q9/MsWfgh7GPvbCogUMbyIesF6mqG4Jz5VzXVzKfeNbCdIfklcy2znnvmB9z4Bd6oWSRnu6VT1qtN/gT912Kzc7qnY6LMhlTBToU714yh0Q/Ckew1UvI7eeYYecWxoNhjCYLRU=
Message-ID: <21df75940606121546o6cd17ca9v55a28a8ade8ba95e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:46:56 -0400
From: "Paul McMahan" <paulmcmahan@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] 1.1-rc1 Now Available
In-Reply-To: <448DC7CA.7070906@hogstrom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <448CE41F.9000304@hogstrom.org> <448DC7CA.7070906@hogstrom.org>

FYI,  a problem with the web access log portlet in the release
candidate was reported on the user list.  Turns out this results from
the change in rev 407883 which disables the access logs in the tomcat
assembly.  Some issues with the current configuration are:

-- the web access log viewer in the console cannot display
-- the jetty assembly has access logs enabled by default (an inconsistency)
-- the instructions in var/config/config.xml for reenabling access
logs are incorrect
   (it says to change load=false to load=true but you actually need to
delete the entire
   section added in r407883)

I opened GERONIMO-2110 to track this issue.

thanks,
Paul

On 6/12/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I apologize for resending this to the lists.  I inadvertantly did not put [vote] in the subject line
> so it may not have been apparent.  The remainder of this e-mail is the same content that was
> distributed last night.
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised about the
> > first candidate have been addressed.
> >
> > They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices from
> > the distribution.  I added them.  Guillaume also pointed out that he
> > noted that there should be a Third Party Notices.  This was not included
> > in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so I did not follow it
> > up.  Thoughts?
> >
> > Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread started
> > by Hernan.  The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was the source used
> > to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will find in the build.
> >
> > To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used rc1 which
> > Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions so I trust that
> > works here.
> >
> > JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo under
> > CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new deployment problem
> > that left partially deployed artifacts in the repository.
> >
> > I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and we are
> > significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0.  We have a lot of
> > improvement left for CMP EJBs.  It appears that the performance
> > improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race condition when running
> > under DB2.  I'm afraid that the only way to address the problem is to
> > add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB that allow for the specification of
> > Isolation Levels for individual beans.  This is a relatively simple
> > change but the build as it stands is specification compliant.  I would
> > prefer to let this release go forward since CMP 2.1 EJBs are not nearly
> > as common as the other J2EE components.  I would like to address this in
> > 1.1.1 however I don't think we've locked down whether that would be
> > allowed or not.  The change would affect TranQL and OpenEJB so they are
> > really included components so I'd be interested in people's feedback.
> >
> > So please accept a named RC1.  Your voting and feedback are for:
> >
> > Geronimo 1.1
> > DayTrader 1.1
> > Specs 1.1
> >
> > The vote will stand for 72 hours.  Issues raised will be discussed and
> > if we conclude that there is a bug that must be addressed then we will
> > mitigate the problem and respin a new rc for a 72 hour vote.
> >
> > If this is accepted all three of the above components will be released
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > Here are the builds for your review and comment:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip
> >
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments and feedback.
> >
> >
>