geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Warner" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] GEP 2.1 support for v1.1
Date Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:33:39 GMT
Hi Tim,

Given that we already have a release that supports 1.1, I'd be inclined to
go with #3 as well.  It'd make it a little clunkier to go from 2.0 to
2.1(server), though, from what I understand.  Correct me if I'm wrong,
but the
process for that would be to port your app to 2.0 server, and then upgrade
to 2.1 GEP for porting to 2.1 server?


~Jason Warner

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Tim McConnell <>

> Hi, The JAXB refactoring of the GEP 2.1.x code is almost complete for the
> 2.0.x
> and 2.1.x versions of the Geronimo servers. Most major functions are now
> working
> and we are much better positioned to handle future schema changes in a
> more
> timely manner. Traditionally, the GEP has supported 3 to 4 versions of the
> Geronimo server (primarily to provide a migration/upgrade path), and we
> had
> originally planned on supporting v1.1, v2.0.x, v2.1.x. However, since we
> are
> almost 2 months behind the release of the v2.1 Geronimo server I would
> like to
> discuss some possible alternatives for supporting the v1.1 Geronimo server
> in
> this release of the GEP:
> #1. Proceed with the JAXB refactoring work for the v1.1 code (obviously
> the most
> expensive in terms of time and testing required)
> #2. Leave the v1.1 support in the current EMF implementation (i.e., the
> JAXB and
> EMF implementations would co-exist)
> #3. Remove support altogether for v1.1 in this release of the GEP --
> support
> only the v2.0 and v2.1 Geronimo servers (the least expensive in terms of
> time
> and testing required)
> I'm now of the opinion that we should pursue alternative #3 and remove
> v1.1
> support entirely. My primary rationale is that the the old 2.0 release of
> the
> GEP can still be used to provide v1.1 server support, and still provides a
> migration path from v1.1 to v2.0. It's true that we would lose the v1.1 to
> v2.1
> migration path, but this is mitigated somewhat since the support in the
> GEP for
> the v2.0 and v2.1 versions of the server is almost identical. Equally
> important
> is that we could then focus entirely on fixing the few remaining JIRAs and
> augmenting our JUnit testcases, and release the GEP 2.1 quicker (i.e., in
> the
> next week or 10 days). Thoughts ??
> --
> Thanks,
> Tim McConnell

~Jason Warner

View raw message