Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of davanum@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.225 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=Z1RSs/gXOq+TXoE+6ye3dX5QjcAOnt6979Q75YmHVyRV/v4sy5sugyvLiIr1RtN7v9EYMnvcvE51zt9tvqXMHlHfrGP02SWHVZ1y0tDgeA7oWxjBVdA3LJs9qpQ68X0flvQbLCDz9X4r2lLGJ93hqvtu25NAGCk7Teb2lcanwJY=
Message-ID: <19e0530f0701110525r72e2d9cdve944b3f322e88b1f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:25:40 -0500
From: "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dims@apache.org
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Assemblies assemblies everywhere and which one to ship?
In-Reply-To: <90B8A20C-5730-4201-A585-22F6BC09BF04@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <33031AF9-A74F-4CD0-943D-4CCB27D192E1@hogstrom.org>
	 <272E1F94-812E-44B2-9C09-C064012E60FA@yahoo.com>
	 <D78A4099-9043-4524-9038-D2AE9D4D1035@iq80.com>
	 <19e0530f0701091938x3c5360e8jc4b69f8a4c33f119@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5eb405c70701102101ob118dbapae8b478de1e408d0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <90B8A20C-5730-4201-A585-22F6BC09BF04@yahoo.com>

I agree with david.

-- dims

On 1/11/07, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
> > How hard is it to switch between the different assemblies once the TCK
> > testing environment is setup? If it is easy enough, maybe we should
> > first test all 8 assemblies and then concentrate on only those that
> > pass the most tests.
>
> I guess I have the opposite point of view :-).  I suspect if we get
> all the tests passing for each component in one configuration, they
> will pretty much pass in all the other configurations, e.g. if cxf +
> jetty + openjpa works then cxf + tomcat + cayenne will work too, so
> the main chore will be to verify this.  If it's simple enough to run
> the tck this won't be impossibly difficult to test all the
> combinations, just take a bunch of machine time.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 1/9/07, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think testing say (Tomcat+Axis2+OpenJPA) and (Jetty+CXF+Cayenne) is
> >> enough. All components should be tested at least once. If we get
> >> time,
> >> we could do more :)
> >>
> >> -- dims
> >>
> >> On 1/8/07, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jan 7, 2007, at 9:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Jan 7, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I was thinking about M2 this weekend and was considering many of
> >> > >> the challenges we face in putting out certified releases.  Up
> >> till
> >> > >> now the number of permutations has been pretty limited and that
> >> > >> has been Jetty and Tomcat.  With Java EE 5.0 life is no longer
> >> > >> that simple.  Here are the choices I know of today:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Web Container (Tomcat / Jetty)
> >> > >> WebServices (Axis 2 / CXF)
> >> > >> EJB 3.0 Persistence (OpenJPA / Cayenne)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think this makes 6 different assemblies and of course 6
> >> separate
> >> > >> certification efforts.  Perhaps we can do this and perhaps we
> >> > >> can't.  Based on where projects are at and their desire to
> >> > >> participate in helping to integrate (and do TCK testing :).
> >> > >
> >> > > ummm 2 * 2 * 2 == 8
> >> > >
> >> > > I could be very wrong but I thought that the cmp 2.1 support in
> >> > > openejb3 was relying on openjpa-specific features.  If so I
> >> wonder
> >> > > if it will be tricky to run the tck on other jpa implementations.
> >> >
> >> > Well, we depend on being able to listen to events on the EM which
> >> > there is no spec interface for.  I'm sure Cayanne has and interface
> >> > that can provide us with the events, and when they send us the info
> >> > we can add a hook for their Impl.
> >> >
> >> > In general, I think we should just pick a single JPA implementation
> >> > to ship with G because it is very easy for an application to
> >> request
> >> > a different implementation using specification defined properties.
> >> >
> >> > Of course that will leave us with 4 javaee assemblies and 2 minimal
> >> > assemblies.
> >> >
> >> > -dain
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service
> >> Developers)
> >>
>
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)