On Nov 29, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Personally I'd prefer to move forward with Java EE 5.0. I think
1.4 assemblies would be nice but we have existing branches for that
area and based on user feedback that isn't an area that is really
interesting to them.
We're going to have mixed assemblies for a while until we complete
all the ee 5 bits. I don't see any value in removing functionality
from our server before we have an ee5 replacement.
On Nov 29, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
I think it would be cool to be able to build mixed 1.4/JEE5
assemblies
but I'm not clear on how to make that happen without creating a
proliferation of modules, configs, and assemblies. So I have been
working under the assumption that trunk is strictly for EE5 and that
any references to J2EE 1.4 artifacts will be upgraded in place. If I
understand Joe's proposal correctly then he plans to overwrite
geronimo-jetty, geronimo-jetty-builder, etc to use jetty v6
instead of
merging them into trunk as they appear in sandbox, which would be in
line with my initial approach for tomcat v6 as well. But that seems
to contradict the intent of GERONIMO-2604. Will trunk continue to
support J2EE 1.4 and if so how will the src tree be organized?
You can use the artifact_aliases.properties file in var/config to
substitute one config for another. For instance the geronimo-jetty6-
jee5 server in sandbox uses a lot of regular geronimo modules but
points them to the jee5 tm instead of the j2ee1.4 tm. I've wondered
if it would be a good idea to have fake nonexistent generic configs
for some things and use aliases to point to a specific
implementation, but I haven't come up with a strong argument for this.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 11/29/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David,
I think this is a great idea. However, I'm curious about the
need for
the 1.4 specs in trunk. Do you envision this soon being replaced
by a
JavaEE5 specs car? Should we just rename this now to be JavaEE5
and
then update the individual specs contained within it? Just
curious on
how you were thinking that we would handle the 1.4 to EE 5 move.
Dunno, I had this sitting on my machine for a couple of weeks since
before the 1.2 branch and wanted to get it out.
I'd also like to get the Jetty6 implementation from the sandbox
included
in trunk soon. Along the same lines as above, I assume that we
would
drop the "-jee5" suffixes as well as the "6" from the jetty
artifacts
and integrate these changes directly into the appropriate items in
trunk. Being that we now have a branch for 1.2 and trunk is
building
exclusively using 1.5 (both source and target) I don't think
there is a
need to continue to maintain the Jetty 5.* in trunk. If you
don't have
any objects I'll be looking moving these changes into trunk with
those
assumptions.
I kinda like the jetty6 rather than jetty for the modules and configs
(jars and modules???) I'm not thrilled about dropping the jetty5
support until it gets in the way of progress which I don't think it
has yet. For assembly names I think jee5 is more appropriate than
j2ee. Does jee5 show up somewhere else?
thanks
david jencks
Joe
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When the clouds are full they pour the rain out on the earth;
and whether a tree falls to the north, or it falls to the south,
wherever the tree falls, there is lies.
