incubator-wadi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <>
Subject Re: moving forward...
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:34:54 GMT
Bill Dudney wrote:

> Hi Jules,
> On Jan 4, 2006, at 3:42 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
>> So, there seem to be several threads that need discussion and  
>> prioritising.
>> Here is my shot at it,
>> in order of priority:
>> 1. Geronimo Integrations (Jules, Jan, Jeff?).
>> Still top of my list. Geronimo-1.0 is still pending and we still  
>> have time to ensure that our Jetty and TC integrations are actually  
>> working, preferably with the webapp from a WADI release, worst case  
>> scenario, with a specially hacked version of the webapp. If someone  
>> d/ls G1.0 and follows the README to I want them  to 
>> find enough doc and code to easily run up the wadi-webapp and  run 
>> through the 'Getting Started' doc. This has been my priority  since 
>> well before ApacheCon and will remain so until it is done.
>> Jeff is convinced that this will involve no code changes and could  
>> run in tandem with (2). I am not and will not - sorry Jeff. Jeff  
>> also seems to have issues with making his ?working? integration  
>> available to the rest of us  (see his mail). If that is the case,  
>> then I/we will just have to reinvent the wheel. I hope that this  
>> will not be the case.
> I just finished chatting with Jan and I think the problem is simply  
> an additional dependency that crept in after I made the list of  
> dependencies. I'll post again once I have confirmation that we have  
> success with the new list of dependent jars (the additional jar file  
> is backport-util-concurrent-2.0_01_pd.jar if you are dying to try  now 
> :).
yes please.

>> 2. Project migration (Jules (codebase), Bill (website), ...)
>> See my mails of the 23rd and 24th Dec. Probably more bits and  pieces 
>> to discuss here.
> Web site is complete and even a bit simplified (to build that is)  
> with improvements in Maven 2.0.1 and the updated surefire, javadoc  
> and site plugins. As we discussed before the break the codehaus site  
> is hosed and since I did not know how to deploy there I put our site  
> on the incubator space (

fine - there will be updates that need doing when the migration is 
finalised, dues to changes in mailing lists, repos etc - you might want 
to consider what these might be.

>> 3. Configuration discussions/actions (Jules, Greg, Jan, Jeff, ...)
>> I will respond to this thread today... It will need more space than  
>> is available here.
>> 3. AMQ and AC upgrades (Bill)
>> Bill - I've looked at AC now and see that they have repackaged it.  
>> So, you are right, the changes are incompatible and WADI has no  
>> further layer of abstraction behind which to retreat. I suggest  that 
>> we hold off on the upgrade until we have (1) and (2) done and  
>> Geronimo has moved up to these versions. At that point, we may then  
>> move our code onto the new AC/AMQ platform. For the time being, I  
>> think the best thing would be to identify the top and bottom  
>> versions which encapsulate your changes and generate a patch, to be  
>> applied when these constraints are fulfilled (or you could take a  
>> branch, once we have migrated - but then you will be responsible  for 
>> keeping it up to date until it can be merged). How does that  sound ?
> Everything except 'I'm responsible' sounds great :-)
> From what I recall with the AMQ & G teams the thinking is the sooner  
> they can move to  AMQ 4 the better. I'll check around again for  
> timeframes.


> Any thoughts on additional work we should/need to do on the AMQ  
> integration with the 3.2 code? Seems that things work now with tcp://  
> instead of peer:// so we are good to go with the 3.2 code base now  
> right? IOW - you have worked around all the outstanding issues in 3.2  
> and I don't need to try to come up with any other workarounds right?

I guess so.

> Agreed that we should wait on at least (2) for sure, that is one of  
> the reasons I'm so antsy to get our code base in SVN.

understood :-) I would like to see it there soon myself, but ...

> On another note - we will likely have to have a branch of WADI that  
> supports G 1.0 - that branch will never get the AMQ 4.0 changes  
> applied anyway. I think this is another great reason to move to SVN  
> ASAP (even if we can't verify that everything we want working is  
> working). Trying to manage all this in CVS is a pain in the neck and  
> will all have to be redone as soon as we make the move to SVN anyway.  
> I have done lots of SVN stuff with myfaces and would be happy to  
> manage our SVN stuff once we make the move.
> I know the lack of repeatability of Geroniomo working bits is  
> disconcerting but IMO managing getting everything working properly  
> again would be much easier in SVN, esp the branch and G 1.0 branch vs  
> G trunk.

possibly, and an svn branch is a good idea, particularly for maintaining 
a working 1.0 version, however the migration involves a lot more than 
this. It involves breaking up the codebase and subsequent alterations to 
the build system as well as a number of other things that have been 
bullet-pointed but not given great thought. I am really loathe to take 
this on board, further destabilising what we have and slowing us down 
until the g1.0 integration/release is sorted. There are also further 
changes to the codebase that I want to make before the donation.

I appreciate your desire to get to the incubator and I hope you will 
respect my desire to finish one thing before we start another.

This incubator thread is chewing a large number of everyone's cycles, I 
really think it should be put on ice until the g1 stuff is out of the door.

>> AOB ?
>> In terms of timeline, things will take as long as they take. The  
>> G1.0 integration was meant to take 1/2 an hour and is still  ongoing, 
>> so I'm not committing to any deadlines.
>> I'm finding that having to debate what I consider insignificant  
>> issues at great length on this list is really detracting from the  
>> time that I can spend actually working on WADI. I'm new at the  
>> business of being involved in a project with this many people on  
>> board, so I am not sure how to resolve this. I am hoping that  things 
>> will calm down when (2) is completed. I apologise for any  
>> frustration that may have 'leaked' into my mails. Now that the  
>> 'history' thread appears to be drawing to a close, I look forward  to 
>> more productive times ahead.
> I don't recall seeing anything from Bruce on moving things over to  
> SVN, from what I recall we had consensus on moving the history it was  
> merely a matter of the work of kicking off the migration.
> Bruce what is the scoop on that? Am I wrong, if not is it possible to  
> get an ETA on getting the history into SVN?


I have taken on the task of migrating the codebase along with history 
and mailing list histories to the incubator. (see my mail '[wadi-dev] 
Re: [long but important] importing cvs history' - 24/12). These will all 
be done when I get to them.

Please can we forget the migration for a while and concentrate on G1 and 
other tasks.


>> Jules
>> -- 
>> "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
>> string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
>> crystallises out around it."
>> /**********************************
>> * Jules Gosnell
>> * Partner
>> * Core Developers Network (Europe)
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> * Open Source Training & Support.
>> **********************************/

"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."

 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)
 * Open Source Training & Support.

View raw message