geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jack Cai <greensi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
Date Wed, 20 May 2009 15:16:23 GMT
+1 on both Jetty 7 as default and 2.2 branch creation.

-Jack

2009/5/20 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>

> I've moved the jetty7 integration from my sandbox into trunk.  It's always
> built but not used by default.
> To use jetty7 rather than jetty6 run maven with -Djetty=jetty7 or change
> the commenting in the root pom to
>
>         <!--<jetty>jetty6</jetty>-->
>         <jetty>jetty7</jetty>
>
> The Jaspic implementation seems to be working pretty well with the tck.
>
> At this point I'd like to branch 2.2 off and integration the classloading
> stuff I did in my framework sandbox.  I don't really anticipate any more
> large-scale changes to 2.2, just fixes for various issues such as the mdb
> problems.
>
> Alternatively I could create a branch of all of geronimo to play more with
> classloading.  However I'd rather this stuff was in the bright light of
> trunk development.
>
> I'd also like to switch to using jetty7 by default.
>
> Comments?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:50 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>
> 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 [1] and current status [2] of
> 2.2. The latter [2] 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?)
>
> What's the problem with (4)?
>
> 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.
>
>
> I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup.
>  After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly
> of correctly configuring classloaders I don't  think we should put this into
> 2.2.  For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55
> seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server.
>
> At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to:
>
> 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now
> 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy
> 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT
> 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution.
>
> For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in.  We finally got
> the tck from sun.  I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard
> it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run.  If we can get it in we can
> probably also get the jetty 7 integration in.  Doing this before (1) might
> be a good idea.
>
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> And of course there are also testing and doc work.
>
> Please complement and elaborate if necessary.
>
> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html
> [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html
>
> - Jack
>
> 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall
>> some missing function...
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message