geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <jaydmch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] GEP 2.1 support for v1.1
Date Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:23:39 GMT
+1 for number 3

Jay

Tim McConnell wrote:
> 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 ??
> 

Mime
View raw message