geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r480329 - in /geronimo/server/trunk/configs: ./ client/ j2ee-1.4-specs/ j2ee-1.4-specs/src/ j2ee-1.4-specs/src/plan/ j2ee-server/ rmi-naming/
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:14:09 GMT

On Nov 29, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> Personally I'd prefer to move forward with Java EE 5.0.  I think  
> 1.4 assemblies would be nice but we have existing branches for that  
> area and based on user feedback that isn't an area that is really  
> interesting to them.

We're going to have mixed assemblies for a while until we complete  
all the ee 5 bits.  I don't see any value in removing functionality  
from our server before we have an ee5 replacement.
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>> I think it would be cool to be able to build mixed 1.4/JEE5  
>> assemblies
>> but I'm not clear on how to make that happen without creating a
>> proliferation of modules, configs, and assemblies.  So I have been
>> working under the assumption that trunk is strictly for EE5 and that
>> any references to J2EE 1.4 artifacts will be upgraded in place.  If I
>> understand Joe's proposal correctly then he plans to overwrite
>> geronimo-jetty, geronimo-jetty-builder, etc to use jetty v6  
>> instead of
>> merging them into trunk as they appear in sandbox, which would be in
>> line with my initial approach for tomcat v6 as well.  But that seems
>> to contradict the intent of GERONIMO-2604.  Will trunk continue to
>> support J2EE 1.4 and if so how will the src tree be organized?

You can use the artifact_aliases.properties file in var/config to  
substitute one config for another.  For instance the geronimo-jetty6- 
jee5 server in sandbox uses a lot of regular geronimo modules but  
points them to the jee5 tm instead of the j2ee1.4 tm.  I've wondered  
if it would be a good idea to have fake nonexistent generic configs  
for some things and use aliases to point to a specific  
implementation, but I haven't come up with a strong argument for this.

>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>> On 11/29/06, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I think this is a great idea.  However, I'm curious about the  
>>> need for
>>> the 1.4 specs in trunk.  Do you envision this soon being replaced  
>>> by a
>>> JavaEE5 specs car?   Should we just rename this now to be JavaEE5  
>>> and
>>> then update the individual specs contained within it?   Just  
>>> curious on
>>> how you were thinking that we would handle the 1.4 to EE 5 move.

Dunno, I had this sitting on my machine for a couple of weeks since  
before the 1.2 branch and wanted to get it out.

>>>
>>> I'd also like to get the Jetty6 implementation from the sandbox  
>>> included
>>> in trunk soon.  Along the same lines as above, I assume that we  
>>> would
>>> drop the "-jee5" suffixes as well as the "6" from the jetty  
>>> artifacts
>>> and integrate these changes directly into the appropriate items in
>>> trunk.  Being that we now have a branch for 1.2 and trunk is  
>>> building
>>> exclusively using 1.5 (both source and target) I don't think  
>>> there is a
>>> need to continue to maintain the Jetty 5.* in trunk.  If you  
>>> don't have
>>> any objects I'll be looking moving these changes into trunk with  
>>> those
>>> assumptions.

I kinda like the jetty6 rather than jetty for the modules and configs  
(jars and modules???)  I'm not thrilled about dropping the jetty5  
support until it gets in  the way of progress which I don't think it  
has yet.  For assembly names I think jee5 is more appropriate than  
j2ee.  Does jee5 show up somewhere else?

thanks
david jencks

>>>
>>> Joe
>>
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
> When the clouds are full they pour the rain out on the earth;
> and whether a tree falls to the north, or it falls to the south,
> wherever the tree falls, there is lies.
>
>


Mime
View raw message