incubator-wadi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <>
Subject Re: -1 on checkin of 368344 was Re: [wadi-dev] Clustering: WADI/Geronimo integrations.
Date Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:46:36 GMT
OK, Folks - here is how I see it -

Everyone knows that they are right and the other guy is wrong.

Result - DEADLOCK - everyone loses.

Solution - release locks, back off, coordinate, retry.

Releasing locks involves us all making concessions :

I suggest -

Jan, Greg and I conceded that Jeff could have been more involved in 
discussion before this change went in.
Jeff concedes that Jan, Greg and I should have been involved in 
discussion before he backed the change out.
We all agree to overlook all current technical differences.
We all agree to put aside whatever bad feelings may have arisen from 
this incident.

OK - locks released, backing-off complete.

Now, coordination :

WADI side :

I will downgrade the to a log.debug
I will remove the axion dependency.
I will resubmit the change as a patch to Jan and Jeff.

Jetty/Tomcat side :
Jan and Jeff will take this patch, and all relevant input.
If they feel that they need further discussion, they will have it.
They will implement a simple, unified solution to the issue for all 
existing cases and get it in to Geronimo 1.0.1

I simply want a speedy, painless resolution so we can continue forward.

If everyone else is happy with these terms, then here is my '+1'


Jeff Genender wrote:

>Hi Jules.
>A few comments.  First, you made changes without discussing them on the
>dev lists.
>As per the discussions in the past, both Aaron and David Jencks, as well
>as I threw in our .02 on how to integrate the clustering.  I would
>appreciate you discuss code ideas and changes that have such a drastic
>impact on the Geronimo code base.  Here are the issues with your check in:
>1) I explained before for Jetty, and obviously now I need to do it for
>Tomcat, a -1 on Axion as a dependency.  There should not be any web
>application dependencies injected at the container level.  This means
>there is a severe architectural issue with WADI when we are injecting
>these dependencies into the container.
>2) You hard coded in org.codehaus.wadi.tomcat55.TomcatManager as the
>distributablesession manager in the TomcatContainer.  Hardcoding a
>pluggable session engine is very bad, and defeats the pluggability of a
>configuration that we requested.
>3) You placed in the code, and Aaron worked pretty hard to
>clean those up.
>4) Your integration of setting the manager (no matter what) is a direct
>clash with the
>Jules, I am giving a complete -1 of checkin of 368344.  These are all
>for technical reasons.  Please back out these changes, and bring this
>discussion to the Geronimo lists as this needs some significant
>discussion for implementation.  I would appreciate that you please
>involve the Apache way and open discussions on the lists before doing
>this sort of thing in the future.
>Again, I will CC the G lists to make this clear, that I would like this
>change backed out.
>Jules Gosnell wrote:
>>Here is a list of outstanding issues associated with this work:
>>- ActiveMQ's shutdown hook seems to trigger when Geronimo is shutdown,
>>removing AMQ before WADI - WADI doesn't like this. I have added a
>>property to the script which suppresses this behaviour. I will
>>document it in the Getting Started doc.
>>- There 'may' be issues with nodes finding each other, when a Geronimo
>>node is introduced into a WADI cluster - investigating.
>>- Jeff - you should look over the changes and make sure that they do not
>>impact on any other TC fn-ality. They were done with Emacs, so the
>>formatting may be offensive. Please feel free to make them your own and
>>bring any issues back to the list. The WADIGBean, is no longer used, so
>>you may want to remove this from the repo.
>>- Jan and Jeff - since this config is now done on the container bean and
>>not in the geronimo-web.xml, you may no longer need to implement your
>>own geronimo-web.xml schemas (I haven't looked very closely at TC). You
>>may want to consider this and perhaps lose them.
>>- In order to get the same webapp to work in all containers
>>(tomcat5[05], jetty[56], geronimo-[tomcat/jetty], jboss-tomcat), I had
>>to move deps back to Geronimo container-level. These include Axion,
>>which I know will upset Jeff. As I have stated before, WADI's dependence
>>on Axion is easily removed. If Jeff or anyone wants to look at replacing
>>it with Derby, it is fine with me, as long as they do some testing and
>>confirm that having created a session on a single node and restarted it,
>>the session survives (if the DB is still running). This needs to be
>>tested on all supported containers. Axion was used because it is an
>>in-VM DB (so imposes no further integration dependencies on the Getting
>>Started stuff and is useful for unit-testing) and was in use by Geronimo
>>at the time. So I suggest that any replacement needs to also be able to
>>run in-vm aswell. As we go further and move WADI's actual configuration
>>from the app to the container-level, these issues will disappear and
>>WADI will be able to be hooked to whatever persistance mechanism is
>>shipped in Geronimo by default.
>>- Jan & Jeff , you may want to consider pushing some of this session
>>manager selection code up into a shared GeronimoWebContainer abstraction
>>so that you don't both end up maintaining similar but diverging code...
>>- I may have overlooked a couple of issues. If I come across them, I
>>shall post them.
>>Further work on Geronimo integration :
>>- more testing
>>- make a new WADI release and update geronimo-trunk to use it
>>- look at applying diffs to a G1.0 tree and producing a binary patch for
>>1.0 distros.
>>- update website and release it
>>Jules Gosnell wrote:
>>>Jan and I have just refactored the Geronimo Jetty and Tomcat
>>>integrations to take the same approach to the installation of a 3rd
>>>party session manager, to ease the integration of WADI. This is now
>>>checked in on Geronimo's trunk.
>>>Each top level web container GBean now supports a pair of attributes -
>>>LocalSessionManager and DistributableSessionManager. These may be used
>>>to override the container's choice of SessionManager for webapps with
>>>and without the <distributable/> tag present in the WEB-INF/web.xml,
>>>The attributes expect to be given a classname, if required, this class
>>>will be loaded and instantiated. The resulting instance will be used
>>>as the session manager. If not provided, the container will use a
>>>sensible default. Currently Jetty and TC are set up to use their own
>>>default session managers in the local case and the correct WADI
>>>session manager in the distributable case.
>>>This means that the same WADI-enabled webapp, with its plan held
>>>internally (WEB-INF/geronimo-web.xml) may now be hot-deployed on
>>>either a Jetty or a Tomcat based Geronimo, without changes :-)
>>>I will post specific WADI issues to the WADI dev lists
>>>This shouldn't be seen as a final position on the subject - there is
>>>still much to talk about, but is a useful interim step, that allows us
>>>to have something working whilst we figure out how to go forward.

"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