Here are a few minor things that come to mind.

- Ensure license files, etc. are up to snuff
- Review readme files to make sure instructions are correct. For the J2EE client apps, there should be
  some mention of setting the "endorsed" directory
- Make sure config changes are propagated to the web.xml

There is one major thing I wanted to mention. For those that haven't seen it, Microsoft published a StockTrader benchmark based on Trade 6.1 (which served as the basis for DayTrader). Here is a link for members of the list to review.

They have used this benchmark to market .NET as a player in the SOA space by publishing web services numbers using the web services mode available within Trade/DayTrader (among other modes) that pit .NET versus WebSphere. For those interested, please review the MS documentation and then read the response from Andrew Spyker (on the WebSphere community blog) at the following link.

As Andrew Spyker suggests in the blog entry, the web services in Trade/DayTrader are extremely fine-grained (avg. about 500 bytes/req) which does not comply with just about every web services best practices document I've ever read. Based on this, I would like to propose that the the web services in their current form be removed from DayTrader.

I had mentioned this previously and met some opposition as several people cited the web services within DayTrader as an functional sample of web services. I completely understand the need to have a web services sample. However, if you portray DayTrader as a performance benchmark (as I think we should), we should make every effort to ensure that all modes within the benchmark are designed with all best practices in mind. If Microsoft can do this kind of "Bench-marketing" with Trade 6.1 and WebSphere, we should be proactive and prevent them from doing the same with DayTrader and any other J2EE vendor.

In summary, I guess I really just wanted to say that I feel the web services modes in DayTrader should be removed at least until we can come up with something better. If the only reason to keep these around is to provide a "sample" and not a performance benchmark, lets come up with some other sample that demonstrates web services.

Ok.... that's all for my rant.... any thoughts?


On 10/1/07, Matt Hogstrom < > wrote:
I'm going to port the market summary interval changes back from 2.0
to 1.2 so we can get comparable numbers between the versions.  With
that I'd like to sugggest we wrap up 1.2 and 2.0 and release these.

Are there any outstanding changes folks want before we let these
releases out?

"I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may." - Tyler Durden