geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lin Sun" <linsun....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Date Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:32:58 GMT
Hi, Joe, thanks for starting the thread.

I'd vote for No. 3.   I envision for any future maintenance release of
2.1, such as 2.1.3, we can just release a sample compatibility plugin,
if there is no other changes required.

I think No. 3 will make things manageable (we test samples with one
release instead of 3 releases) and make sure we have a good sample
solution to our user.   I think users will be more frustrated if they
find out samples not working on a particular release when we say we
support them.    If users want to use the samples, they need to
download G server 2.1.2, otherwise unexpected behavior can happen.
Isn't this same as if you want to use our GEP, you need to be on a
particular version of eclipse and JDK?

Lin

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time.  There are
> multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them has
> to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
>
> Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1 for
> the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same samples
> working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+.  If it wasn't possible to get the same samples
> working on higher releases then I figured we would release 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+
> versions of the samples.  Now, I'm starting to wonder if it is worth the
> effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
>
> Here are the facts:
> - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a 2.1.2
> server or even a 2.2 server.
> - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
> 2.1.1.  Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to run
> them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That seems
> like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok.  If we release 2.1.1
> samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point users to leverage
> on 2.1.2?  IMO it would be clearer to say we support 2.1.2+.
> - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they primarily
> of value on the latest release?  As Lin pointed out to me, users looking at
> samples will most likely be working with our latest release.  If we release
> samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use them (assuming we release
> 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the samples for 2.1.2)?
>
> So these are the obvious choices:
> 1) Release samples for 2.1.  Release another version of samples for 2.1.1.
>  Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries in the 2.1.2
> server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
> OR
> 2) Release samples for 2.1.  Skip 2.1.1.  Add artifact aliases to support
> the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support samples on
> 2.1.1.
> OR
> 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases with
> artifact aliases.  Point users that want to leverage samples to do so on
> 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
>
> There are a few potential issues with option #3:
> - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the use
> of an external LDAP server.  The recommended approach for the installed
> directory server is to install the Directory plugin.  However, this plugin
> is currently only released for a G 2.1 server.  We would need to either
> release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the compatibility trick
> with aliases again for 2.1.2.
> - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
> ldap-sample examples will never work.  Actually, they won't work even if we
> release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the groupid/module
> names of these samples back to the original names prior to a release of them
> (which I doubt we would want to do).
>
> Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
>
> Joe
>

Mime
View raw message