geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Promoting GShell to a real subproject
Date Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:24:15 GMT
+1 from me.

On 10/26/07, Paul McMahan <paulmcmahan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Makes sense to me.  +1 for gshell as a subproject.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 26, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see why we shouldn't. But can someone more informed please
> >> list the pros and cons.
> >
> > Here's my list:
> >
> > Pro's
> >
> >  * Easier for other projects to reuse GShell
> >  * Release cycle not tied to Geronimo server release cycle
> >
> > Con's
> >
> >  * Small overhead for being a separately released project --
> > documentation, release voting, etc
> >  * Separate source tree can complicate debugging (can make the
> > counterpoint that debugging GShell is easier...)
> >
> > The Geronimo tx-manager components (transaction and connector) is
> > another example where we've done this. Note that prior to (or
> > concurrent with) voting on our last two releases, we've been voting
> > on a tx-manager release. Although it need not be that way, we're
> > falling into a lock-step release cycle...
> >
> > I assume that Guillaume is interested in using GShell outside of
> > Geronimo. I assume that there will be others...
> >
> > I'd support GShell as a subproject...
> >
> > --kevan
> >
>
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

Mime
View raw message