Jeff, Can you please calm down? I'm trying to discuss your concerns, but you appear to be taking offence that I'm doing so?
These are not my changes - I'm just an interested observer on this one trying to interpret the arguments that have been put forward! > Greg, based on the fact that I -1'd Jan's inclusion of Axion on 1/5, and > it was never tended too, Your concern was address. Jan removed the dependency and put the jar back into the webapp. But that was for a per webapp clustering solution. It has generally been discussed an agreed to move towards a per container clustering configuration. > As for Axion being used to persist the session and is a container > dependency, I disagree...lets look at where axion is being used in WADI: As far as I understand it, axion is used to persist the session. There has been plenty of discussion about this and if it is appropriate or not. At the very least WADI should probably be changed to use derby which is now used by geronimo. But as of today, axion is a dependency of WADI and we want WADI to be a container rather than a webapp service. If what you say is true - that it is not a dependency, then just remove the dependency 9rather than everything) and it should work! I think you will find that wadi does not work without it. > The hard code of the wadi manager... It is not hard coded. It is just a reasonable default value and it is loosely coupled as it is just a class name. The commit removed a real hard dependency on WADIGBean so the change is less coupled to wadi! > the Axion dependency, Discussed to death. You initial -1 was address when we went back to a per-app config. It is a container dependency and so it has been moved. Now you may argue that WADI could use persistence services in a better way - but that is an issue for WADI not geronimo. > lack of pluggable configuration, The configuration is pluggable. Only the default is hard coded. > lack of ability to set Clustering options (properties) at the clustering > component level. Yes we all agree that a clustering GBean is needed for configuration. It will be the place to have lots of clustering options configured. If you think you can get this done by 1.0.1 - then great! you can then take the session managers config out of the container plans. > I think we have been through this. Lets stop this nonsense and move > forward on an open discussion with David Jencks' thread. I think if we > can concentrate on the positive aspects, we can get this properly going. I don't understand. David commented in this thread? The issues and suggestions he raised are being discussed? > Lets move on guys...we all should be moving forward here and stop > dwelling on this. I'm sorry Jeff, but just because you have -1'd a commit does not mean that the discussion is over and that these changes will never go in. Unless it is understood why you did your -1, then how is anybody going to proceed. Alternately, you could post some proposals or code of your own as to how to fix the change or how to achieve the results some other way? And finally again - I just don't understand your tone and why you are so worked up - its just configuration for XXXX-sake?
