geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Java EE 5.0
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:04:34 GMT


David Jencks wrote:
> 
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> 
>> On 11/7/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@golux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The implicit assumption there is that the 'developers' all have
>>> the same interests.  That's not necessarily how it works.  If
>>> there are some people who are interested in EE 5 but not in the
>>> work on trunk, then they probably aren't contributing anything
>>> there now.  So creating a branch won't be sucking those people
>>> away from trunk, whereas *not* creating it won't advance the
>>> trunk work and *does* present an obstacle for those people.
>>>
>>> The uncertainty element here is people who are currently
>>> contributing to trunk but would switch over to an EE 5
>>> branch if one were created.  Those individuals would be happy,
>>> but the trunk work would suffer.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, part of what contributes to community is
>>> individual empowerment.  If there's insufficient interest in
>>> the trunk work to advance it, then that's pretty much all
>>> she wrote.  It becomes a dead horse.  Trying to mandate that
>>> people put aside their own interests and work on stuff
>>> that *doesn't* interest them isn't an Apache paradigm.  It
>>> has a lot more in common with commercial meet-the-deadline
>>> models.
>>
>>
>> Whow! Very well written! I like it. It should be part of our
>> documentation somewhere. I was leaning towards Dain's and Dave's views
>> and thought to withdraw my +1, but now it won't happen at all. Thanks
>> Ken!
> 
> 
> My objection to putting the jee5 work into a branch is that it's not  a 
> branch!   

I think that we would need to make the Java EE 5 work a true branch 
rather than a sparse tree.

It is currently and IMO will always remain additional  code
> that can happily run side by side with all our current code.  

Do I understand correctly that you are proposing to maintain both 1.4 
assemblies and Java EE 5 assemblies from the same branch?  I'm not 
convinced this is possible.  If it is then it will probably come at a 
significant cost for little value.   Items like the console will most 
likely have to change to support Java EE 5.  If we are attempting to 
maintain compatibility with the 1.4 build then we would need to have two 
console images (4 configs when you factor the tomcat/jetty split). 
Couldn't this result in a number of confusing, mutually exclusive 
plugins?  I think we should make a clean break from 1.4 to 1.5 and Java 
EE 5.

  Creating
> the jee5 workspace is not going to involve copying any  existing 
> geronimo server branch: its going to involve adding new  modules for new 
> functionality.  After reading ken's comments I agree  that keeping it in 
> the sandbox carries an unwanted implication that  it's not ready for 
> prime time.

The sandbox is also treated as ... well, a "sandbox" ... a play area 
where it doesn't really matter if things work or not at the moment. 
Making it a branch brings more focus and hopefully greater collaboration 
as it is now something that all of the developers are responsible to 
maintain rather than just a few interested parties.

> 
> The only solution that comes close to seeming appropriate to me is to  
> reorganize the jee5 work into plugins and move each one into an  
> appropriate plugin area.  I'm worried that this will cause build  system 
> disruption but I think we have to deal with that soon anyway.

It would be great to make plugins from much of the Java EE 5 functions 
in any case (and we'll need them as we continue to push the modularity 
of Geronimo and the RYO server capabilities we want to make easier in 
the future).  However, I'm not sure this will be possible of all of the 
Java EE 5 capabilities.

> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> 
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> -- 
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.jaceklaskowski.pl
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message