For (4) I'd tested the 2.2 basic farm function and opened a JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4504 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4504>Another question is per http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/plugin-based-farming.html
<http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/plugin-based-farming.html>We did some test but found some problems in the doc. So we are not sure if it's working now. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: > > I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already > in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) > > I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of > 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the > areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. > Currently the major development items I see - > > 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job > 2. MDB problems mentioned above > 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above > 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) > > What's the problem with (4)? > > I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working > on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the > classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins > working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can > be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat > slow process. > > thanks > david jencks > > > > And of course there are also testing and doc work. > > Please complement and elaborate if necessary. > > [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html > [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html > > - Jack > > 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> > >> >> On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: >>> >>> Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB >>>> and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a >>>> release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the >>>> major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release.... >>>> >>>> >>> I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with >>> the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed >>> and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked >>> well. >>> >> >> I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. >> David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... >> >> What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall >> some missing function... >> >> --kevan >> > > > -- Shawn
