I think it makes sense to put the non-G-specific core classes in a separate module from the GBeans. I don't feel strongly whether the GBean module(s) should go in G or not, though I might perhaps lean toward "in Geronimo". I think the connector builder should definitely stay in Geronimo.
Thanks, Aaron On 8/10/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, in principle I'm basically in favor of this, although I think it might make sense to version the tm and connector stuff together -- not sure on that. My concerns on doing it now and additional questions to ponder are: -- These modules still depend on g. kernel due to gbeans. I wonder if it would make more sense to wait for xbean-ization. -- the connector builder is not too likely to be useful to others so there's an argument for keeping it in geronimo We might want to think about moving the gbean wrappers to one or two separate modules that stay in g and moving the functional classes into independent modules. thanks david jencks > -dain > > > On Aug 10, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> I think what Dain means is that these modules should be released >> often >> so that Geronimo would only use released version of these modules >> and not snapshots. >> The main thing being imho to release often so that other projects do >> not have to wait a full Geronimo release when a change occur to be >> able >> to use it. >> >> On 8/10/06, Matt Hogstrom < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Dain Sundstrom wrote: >> > On Aug 10, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> > >> >> I can see the difficulty pointed out by Jason and the benefit >> raised >> >> by Dain. I've never liked versioning parts of Geronimo that >> rarely >> >> change and am all for making things more consumable externally. >> >> >> >> The proposal as it stands is fairly generic. Is the idea to >> relocate >> >> Tx Manager and Connector to be top-level projects withing >> Geronimo and >> >> build separately or some kind of hybrid in the current tree. >> If we >> >> are going to release them independently then I think they >> should be >> >> top-level in Geronimo (and I know thats a lot more work). >> > >> > I wanted to get a general sense before discussing the details, >> since >> > there would be no point if were against independent versioning. >> I was >> > thinking we should put each them in a tree which is a peer to >> Geronimo >> > trunk. I also think we should generally only use released >> versions of >> > the jars in Geronimo (i.e., no snapshots) for two reasons 1) it >> is much >> > easier to maintain from a build perspective and 2) is will push >> us to do >> > more frequent releases of them. >> >> Not sure I understand the last statement. (no snapshots) >> >> > -dain >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Guillaume Nodet >
