geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "D. Strauss" <geron...@ds-2.de>
Subject Re: 1.1-rc1 Now Available
Date Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:43:53 GMT
Hello, David,

the JVM Geronimo 1.0 runs on is Sun JDK 1.6 (Mustang), actually it's
b77. As stated already: Geronimo 1.0 runs perfectly, only 1.1 drops the
[L clause.

I downloaded the latest mustang release (b87) and tried it with the same
results.

I checked various sites about the [L signature and you're right.
However, it seems that in JDK 6 this feature will go bye bye :-/ (maybe
that's why I don't know about it :-P)

I changed my startup script so that it points to an old Sun JVM 1.5
installation and set the JRE_HOME var (thx for mentioning that JAVA_HOME
will never be used ;-)).

And started ...

WORKING :-)

So, basically I can say that Geronimo 1.1 RC1 Jetty Minimal runs under
Linux and Sun JVM 1.5 with the JRE_HOME var set. However, it DOES NOT
run with the latest (ok, upcoming) JVM Sun JDK 1.6 Mustang.

I will now backport all my apps to Tiger so that I can start working
with RC1.

As always, keep up the good work. As you mentioned: maybe there is a
workaround for the [L line. Let's hope for the future.

Best regards

Dirk

David Jencks schrieb:
> 
> On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:12 PM, D. Strauss wrote:
> 
>> Hello, Matt
>>
>> how did you and the others got RC1 working??????
>>
>> I tried the windows version, I tried the linux version now: all crash
>> with the same exception:
>>
>> <big snip>
>>
>> Checking the source code of
>> org.apache.geronimo.security.keystore.FileKeystoreManager of rc1 reveals
>> an interesting (and very funny) line:
>>
>>     loader.loadClass("[Ljavax.net.ssl.KeyManager;");
> 
> This is how you load the class of javax.net.ssl.KeyManager[]  (note the
> array).
> 
> I have no idea either why this code construction is required or why you
> are having trouble with it.  What jvm are you using?
> 
>>
>> Is this the new way on loading classes? I mean the [L construct is
>> unknown. I also checked the Sun API docs and they were very clear:
>>
>>     loader.loadClass("javax.net.ssl.KeyManager");
>>
>> is the right way. Or did I miss something about the new specs?
> 
> That will load the class of javax.net.ssl.KeyManager, but not the array
> class.
> 
> tthanks
> david jencks
> 
>>
>> Anyway, it's good to hear that everyone got RC1 working. Seems I have to
>> stay with 1.0 for a long time ;-)
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Dirk
>>
>> Matt Hogstrom schrieb:
>>> Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised about the
>>> first candidate have been addressed.
>>>
>>> They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices from
>>> the distribution.  I added them.  Guillaume also pointed out that he
>>> noted that there should be a Third Party Notices.  This was not included
>>> in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so I did not follow it
>>> up.  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread started
>>> by Hernan.  The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was the source used
>>> to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will find in the build.
>>>
>>> To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used rc1 which
>>> Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions so I trust that
>>> works here.
>>>
>>> JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo under
>>> CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new deployment problem
>>> that left partially deployed artifacts in the repository.
>>>
>>> I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and we are
>>> significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0.  We have a lot of
>>> improvement left for CMP EJBs.  It appears that the performance
>>> improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race condition when running
>>> under DB2.  I'm afraid that the only way to address the problem is to
>>> add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB that allow for the specification of
>>> Isolation Levels for individual beans.  This is a relatively simple
>>> change but the build as it stands is specification compliant.  I would
>>> prefer to let this release go forward since CMP 2.1 EJBs are not nearly
>>> as common as the other J2EE components.  I would like to address this in
>>> 1.1.1 however I don't think we've locked down whether that would be
>>> allowed or not.  The change would affect TranQL and OpenEJB so they are
>>> really included components so I'd be interested in people's feedback.
>>>
>>> So please accept a named RC1.  Your voting and feedback are for:
>>>
>>> Geronimo 1.1
>>> DayTrader 1.1
>>> Specs 1.1
>>>
>>> The vote will stand for 72 hours.  Issues raised will be discussed and
>>> if we conclude that there is a bug that must be addressed then we will
>>> mitigate the problem and respin a new rc for a 72 hour vote.
>>>
>>> If this is accepted all three of the above components will be released
>>> simultaneously.
>>>
>>> Here are the builds for your review and comment:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>>
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>>
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
>>>
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your comments and feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message