geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo Server 2.1 and Geronimo TxManager 2.1.1 Releases
Date Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:11:24 GMT
+1 for continuing the release.

Getting 2.1 out the door is an important step that fixes many 
outstanding issues and is worth releasing.

Also, I have a feeling that the fix for this will end up being in 
Pluto.  We are using a pinned version - and there are significant 
changes between the version of trunk that we stopped at and the current 
trunk.  It very well may be that this issue is already fixed.

But if it isn't, I'm sure that with folks from Geronimo working with the 
people working on Pluto - we'll be able to get it straightened out quickly.


Paul McMahan wrote:
> I share Jarek's concern about the impact of this problem but agree 
> with Joe that there's an adequate (albeit not pretty) workaround.  
> Knowing the full scope of this problem now my +1 still stands.  But I 
> wish we had more information about the underlying problem because it 
> might be simple to fix, and worth holding up the release for since I 
> would expect that most users will want to use HTTPS for administration 
> activities.  But if the fix involved getting a patch committed into 
> pluto's svn then I think we should postpone that type of activity 
> until Geronimo 2.1.1.
> Best wishes,
> Paul
> On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Kevan Miller 
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>> Looks like I sent this to the wrong thread:
>>>> This is about:
>>>> Hmm this seems bad. I was able to reproduce the problem on port 8443
>>>> only but _all_ portlets failed in this way. So the console is pretty
>>>> much unusable on port 8443. Can somebody else verify these findings?
>>>> Yep. Looks like a bug. Don't see this as a security exposure. So, 
>>>> not sure
>>>> why you want to discuss here.
>>>> would seem like 
>>>> the
>>>> appropriate location to work on getting this fixed. Do you disagree?
>>> But, IMHO, this is not just a bug it is a major bug where one of the
>>> important pieces of Geronimo functionality is simply not working on
>>> port 8443. Personally, I would have voted -1 on the release if I
>>> realized the full scope of this bug sooner. But maybe that's just me..
>>> so I would like to know what other people think about this problem. If
>>> it's just me, that's fine. If not, maybe we should consider
>>> withdrawing the release. Although the admin console is working fine on
>>> port 8080 and maybe that's good enough.
>>> Jarek
>> I agree that this is a significant bug but given the current state of 
>> the release and the fact that there is a work-around (although I 
>> admit that it's hardly perfect) I think it makes sense to fix this in 
>> a 2.1.1 release.  IMO, this issue makes it all the more important to 
>> get 2.1.1 out without delay.
>> Joe

View raw message