Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jaydmchugh@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.200.174 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=OVdmQrrNpV91MgopOAOwPLHxEcKZUwq6B3FzTjqBZQAUCTFaYtSnMVjemX9WPCxBKaPID66F9wLe3PesxXHR7tepgkL+eGEeOIeVYaPq4KwsKKB8CSZRuHrXdUUfKujhG2X3pCJkNVcAevA/V9po0/C9jjjaGz+9+8NhLhXbV04=
Message-ID: <47F2537B.8000305@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:23:39 -0500
From: "Jay D. McHugh" <jaydmchugh@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] GEP 2.1 support for v1.1
References: <47EDDF89.1070600@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47EDDF89.1070600@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+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 ??
>