geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Next 2.0 Milestones - Assemblies and Certification - Do we need 8?
Date Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:08:21 GMT
I'm definitely *NOT* in-favor of 8 assemblies.

I also believe that we should use the TCK results from our automated  
builds, not those which happen to pass on certain developer  
machines.  Many issues come up due to varying environments, so tests  
that pass on your machine, might not pass on mine depending on how  
things are setup.  I've tried to get our harness to remove some of  
these, but due to the nature of how the TCK works... and how people  
run them (ie. re-using previously expanded sun dists, which may alter  
future runs).  Also, its hard to say exactly which build of the  
server or cts server which these users are actually testing against,  
which is more reason why I would like to leave this matter to the  
automated system which we know what was used for what build and what  
was tested, and can re-run tests on the same build to verify that  
there are no transient/race-condition problems.

As for plugins... I'm not sure that really changes things all that  
much from actually running the tests... though I think its much  
better from a build perspective.  If we did say have one assembly  
zip, and then some scripts to bootstrap plugins, then from a TCK  
perspective we'd still have to have N full flights to verify that  
each permutation passes.  So the problem is the same using plugins or  
pre-built assemblies.  The only difference is that with plugins we  
have to add a pre-test step which will run the proper plugin  
bootstrap bits to get the right components in the server.

If you need more details on the TCK specifics I can give them on the  
TCK list...

--jason


On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> I know everyone is working feverishly on 2.0 so I'll make this  
> brief.  There are a few things that we need to discuss as the train  
> keeps moving.
>
> First, I'm working on DayTrader 2.0 this week to get the beast  
> deployed on 2.0.  Basically the initial goal is to deploy what we  
> had working for 1.2-beta and 2.0-M1 which I think will be a fair  
> but not exhaustive test for the converter.
>
> Next, regarding assemblies.  Right now we've been producing two  
> assemblies which are the traditional Tomcat and Jetty assemblies  
> with CXF as the web-services component and OpenJPA as the EJB  
> persistence option.  I think we all agree that certifying 8  
> different assemblies is not workable as getting two done generally  
> is a herculean task.  That said, I think we want to make sure that  
> projects that want to be part of a certified version have the  
> option to make that happen.  Since those that are doing the work  
> tend to define what gets in and what ships it seems reasonable to  
> me that the folks doing TCK can choose a configuration that they  
> are interested in testing.  There are no limits to the number of  
> people that can TCK a release so the sky is the limit.
>
> For the JPA folks and WebServices folks I wanted to get a feel what  
> your thoughts are on this topic.  Part of the discussion is how  
> easy is it to include one component versus another and I'll be the  
> first to admit I'm not really well versed with WebServices to have  
> an opinion on integration options.  It seems that JPA is fairly  
> simple in terms of plugging in a persistence provider and the user  
> selecting the one they want.  Dain had mentioned on an earlier e- 
> mail about having a similar plug point for WS and I don't think  
> there was a lot of discussion at the time.  Given where we are at  
> now what are folks thoughts on a plugin option for WebServices?
>
> If there is a plugin option then I think the TCK discussion becomes  
> simpler.  Anyway, for those more skilled in that art than I what  
> are the community thoughts on how to address our expanding set of  
> pluggable components?
>
> I'd like to have the discussion in this thread and if we need to  
> put a vote together to provide a direction we can do that later.
>
> Thanks
>
> Matt


Mime
View raw message