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 jason.dillon@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.232 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:x-mailer:mime-version:subject:content-transfer-encoding:date:references;
        b=bvFZ3O/Y1lGIRmOoeUwYrVrReOTV1u8HmNRqfCdgPBYTlMvtMUEFv9oo/ep3QmWWCbKvWKvnizhZQ6/Y0SPnF/aKU/WuoKbJ1U5GUa2QRXoWYJsOToyo5hW1Pe7+kZFVSaUiZnbEJvIwQsso2SYxecqxqJyV9X4iungtEXYF5xc=
Message-Id: <8974D8AD-3CE4-4454-AB9C-5032ED0179D2@gmail.com>
From: Jason Dillon <jason.dillon@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <88D37969-4710-4BB7-BC16-C5D4B6BC3C3E@hogstrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 1A543a)
Subject: Re: Should we cancel 1.2?
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:20:45 -0700
References: <85E87C6B-7AA7-4695-9BE0-0331FBD080AC@iq80.com>
 <02465772-E341-4DE4-93B5-77C02DB2E6D2@planet57.com>
 <5DEADBBC-F191-4AC3-8F84-95E40379B4FD@iq80.com>
 <88D37969-4710-4BB7-BC16-C5D4B6BC3C3E@hogstrom.org>

Let's just push out 1.2 asis nowish and then address this and any  
other fixes in a 1.2.1.

I don't think we should drop it... But also let's not drop a ton of  
time in it.

--jason


On Jul 16, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:

> Yup.
>
> In my testing CMP mode as well as JDBC mode was working fine.  The  
> new runtime Mode Chris had added to DayTrader was failing.  The  
> problem manifested itself in two different ways.  One manifestation  
> I saw was an exhaustion of the connection pool and a flurry of  
> connection timeouts.  The second was a concurrent modification  
> exception.  I believe they may be the same problem.
>
> It only occurred running underload when more than one client was  
> accessing the system at a time.  I didn't get much further than  
> that.  I started adding some debug code but was waffling between 1.2  
> and 2.0.
>
> The next step is to start adding some code to OEJB 2.x.
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:55 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> It was some connector thing Matt found.  Matt can you fill Jason in  
>> on the details?
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> What were the bugs that were to be "quickly fixed"?  I forget its  
>>> been so long.
>>>
>>> Why not just push it out asis?
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 16, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1.2 has been sitting in a branch for well over 6 months now.   
>>>> Originally, it was going to be delayed so some bugs could be  
>>>> "quickly fixed", but it doesn't look like that is ever going to  
>>>> happen.  I'm not really interested in being the manager for this  
>>>> release anymore, but if there is good interest in getting this  
>>>> released in, say, the next two weeks, I'm willing to continue  
>>>> on.  Otherwise, someone else can take over.
>>>>
>>>> So, does anyone care about releasing 1.2?
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>>
>>
>>
>