geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Prasad Kashyap" <goyathlay.geron...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: M2 - Thoughts on content, branching and other stuff - feedback requested
Date Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:43:34 GMT
I'm OK with shipping the same configurations for M2 but we really
should have a serious discussion on our packaging strategy.

I think we will be opening ourselves to a lot of grief if we took upon
the responsibility of TCK'ing every permutation and combination that
there is. We can "claim support" by configuring and testing many
combinations, individually. We can even assemble a few different
combinations for downloads but Geronimo should TCK only ONE. A user
should always be able to modify his combination. But that is
discussion for another thread.

For now, I'll look forward to the excitement of releasing M2 !!!

Cheers
Prasad




On 1/18/07, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I've been traveling this week a little bit and apologize for being
> tardy in catching everyone up on M2.
>
> Based on the commit log it appears that Dain and Mr. Blevins pulled a
> little rabbit out of the hat called EJB 3.0.  Ok, the fur is a little
> muttled and it might be missing an ear but it really does look like a
> rabbit :)
>
> In keeping with the mantra of release early and often we originally
> had talked about getting M2 out by the end of January.  I had
> proposed the 26th and it still might be doable depending on where we
> get to.  From the release notes prepared by Hernan (thanks sir) here
> are the items we wanted to get into M2.  Some of the items below are
> already included and some are in process.
>
> =========================================
>
> Enterprise Application Technologies
> Common Annotations for the Java Platform        Annotations 1.0         JSR 250
> New for Java EE 5.0     Geronimo implementation
> Enterprise JavaBeans                            EJB 3.0                 JSR 220 Upgrade
from EJB 2.1
> OpenEJB implementation
>      *  JPA
>            o Custom Provider
>            o App-managed,
>            o Container-managed
>      *  OpenEJB 3,0 Geronimo integration
>      *  Annotation-based Deployment
>      *  POJO-Style Beans
>      *  Dependency Injection
>      *  Extended JNDI and DI types??
>      *  EJB 3.0 examples
>
>
> Management
> Java EE Application Deployment  App Deploy 1.2  JSR 88  Maintenance
> Update from App Deploy 1.1      Geronimo implementation
>
> Web Services - Axis2
> Java Architecture for XML Binding       JAXB 2.0        JSR 222         New for Java
EE
> 5.0     Glassfish implementation
> Java API for XML Registries             JAXR 1.0        JSR 93          Same as J2EE
1.4
> Already available
> Streaming API for XML                   STAX 1.0        JSR 173         New for Java
EE 5.0
> Woodstox implementation
>
> Web Services - CXF
> Java API for XML-Based Web Services     JAX-WS 2.0      JSR 224         New for
> Java EE 5.0     CXF implementation      (Pojo Only)
> Java Architecture for XML Binding       JAXB 2.0        JSR 222         New for Java
EE
> 5.0     Glassfish implementation
> Java API for XML-Based RPC              JAX-RPC 1.1     JSR 101         Same as J2EE
1.4
> Axis1 implementation
> Java API for XML Registries             JAXR 1.0        JSR 93          Same as J2EE
1.4
> Already available
> Streaming API for XML                   STAX 1.0        JSR 173         New for Java
EE 5.0
> Woodstox implementation
>
> ========================================
>
> Based on the above perhaps we can branch on Monday around 1700
> Eastern time and package up what we have there.  From a user
> perspective I think we should be able to deploy the EJB samples that
> Prasad and Hernan put together.  If we can do that even though they
> are simple it would certainly let people see that the train continues
> to move.
>
> So this now brings me to the question of assemblies.  For M1 we
> shipped Tomcat and Jetty versions with CXF and OpenJPA.  As we talked
> about in another thread there isn't really a way to generate all the
> permutations of different assemblies I think for M2 we would ship the
> same configurations and in parallel have a discussion on packaging
> for when we get to the beta's so that users and better pick the
> versions of the software they want.
>
> Comments, feedback, on this plan?
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message