geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: Making plugins work better for 2.1.4
Date Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:19:08 GMT

I applied the patch and checked out a few things. Everything looks good 
to me.  In fact, these changes seem to have improved the overall plugin 
install process even from the console (at least it appeared to me that 
the plugins were installed much more quickly).

Please go ahead and integrate these changes into branches/2.1.4 and 


David Jencks wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> Do you have a patch that you can attach here (or better to a JIRA) so 
>> that others can see the proposed changes?
>> It is very late.  I'm basically just waiting for the openjpa release 
>> to make it to the ibiblio mirrors so that I can create the RC.
>> If this is really minor and doesn't break anything then I supposed it 
>> could perhaps squeek in ... if it is ready to go later today or tomorrow.
> I opened and 
> attached a patch.  With the patch (after I've changed the default plugin 
> repo back to my local maven repo)  I can use gshell to install 
> console-jetty onto the framework server, which was failing before.
> Since this AFAICT doesn't change the contents of the server nor how the 
> plugins are wired together I think its safe to apply.  We should 
> probably also apply it to 2.1.... equivalent work should have happened a 
> long time ago for 2.2/trunk when I made the geronimo dependencies follow 
> transitive maven dependencies.
> thanks
> david jencks
>> Joe
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> I'm well aware this is last minute...
>>> Recently a user has discovered that installing plugins into the 
>>> framework server pretty much doesn't work for 2.1.3.  I think this is 
>>> because we're generating some geronimo-plugin.xml without dependency 
>>> versions.
>>> My preliminary investigation looks like we can easily change this 
>>> with 4 changed lines in a couple poms.  I'm trying to figure out what 
>>> if anything obvious this breaks.
>>> IMO we should also point to the actual 2.1.4 plugin repo 
>>> rather than the 
>>> local maven repo as the default plugin repo.
>>> If these don't break anything obvious (e.g. testsuite) what else 
>>> would we need to test to get this into 2.1.4?
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks

View raw message