geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim McConnell <tim.mcco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] GEP 2.1 support for v1.1
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:27:07 GMT
Hi Shiva, yes I think the consensus is option #3, and the removal of the v1.1 
plug-ins is on my pre-release tasklist..... Thanks for the reminder

Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> So are we finally going in for #3? If yes, we must drop v1.1 plug-ins 
> before we release GEP 2.1.0 as most of them may not be working as expected!
> 
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Tim McConnell <tim.mcconne@gmail.com 
> <mailto:tim.mcconne@gmail.com>> 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 ??
> 
>     -- 
>     Thanks,
>     Tim McConnell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Shiva

-- 
Thanks,
Tim McConnell

Mime
View raw message