What's the problem with (4)?On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote:I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-)
I'm reviewing the list of planned features  and current status  of 2.2. The latter  is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see -
1. TCK, need a committer to do the job
2. MDB problems mentioned above
3. JMS portlets update mentioned above
4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?)I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process.thanksdavid jencks
And of course there are also testing and doc work.
Please complement and elaborate if necessary.
- Jack2009/4/16 Kevan Miller <email@example.com>I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list...
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release....
I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well.
What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function...