Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <49353BFE.10905@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:45:34 -0500
From: Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Move monitoring console out of server to plugins?
References: <3D198CC6-2A6E-4C86-9197-52EC8E66A7BE@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D198CC6-2A6E-4C86-9197-52EC8E66A7BE@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+1 to not include Monitoring in the default server assemblies for 2.2.

+0 for moving to geronimo/plugins, as leaving it in the server branch 
would be fine for now (wondering if we'll need a new version of the 
plugin for every major release, due to newer levels of OpenEJB and/or 
OpenJPA.)


-Donald


David Jencks wrote:
> We've discussed at various times trying to make the server build more 
> manageable by moving peripheral plugins out of the server/trunk/pluings 
> into plugins/trunk
> 
> I'd like to start this by moving monitoring before 2.2.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> We have a few options as far as including the console in actual server 
> assemblies:
> 
> 1. don't include it.
> 2. get the monitoring plugins to depend on say g 2.1.4 and include 
> compatibility stuff so it also works on 2.2 when released
> 3. follow the following release process for 2.2:
> 
> a. release framework.  IMO this should include the maven plugins and 
> framework assembly, but people argued when I suggested this svn 
> organization before.
> b. release plugins, at an appropriate rate, including monitoring
> c. release the assemblies.
> 
> I'm happy with any of these approaches or probably any others someone 
> comes up with but slightly prefer (1) or (3).
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
>