+1 on both Jetty 7 as default and 2.2 branch creation. -Jack
2009/5/20 David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> > I've moved the jetty7 integration from my sandbox into trunk. It's always > built but not used by default. > To use jetty7 rather than jetty6 run maven with -Djetty=jetty7 or change > the commenting in the root pom to > > <!--<jetty>jetty6</jetty>--> > <jetty>jetty7</jetty> > > The Jaspic implementation seems to be working pretty well with the tck. > > At this point I'd like to branch 2.2 off and integration the classloading > stuff I did in my framework sandbox. I don't really anticipate any more > large-scale changes to 2.2, just fixes for various issues such as the mdb > problems. > > Alternatively I could create a branch of all of geronimo to play more with > classloading. However I'd rather this stuff was in the bright light of > trunk development. > > I'd also like to switch to using jetty7 by default. > > Comments? > > thanks > david jencks > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:50 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > > On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks 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. > > > I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. > After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly > of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into > 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 > seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. > > At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to: > > 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now > 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy > 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT > 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution. > > For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in. We finally got > the tck from sun. I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard > it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run. If we can get it in we can > probably also get the jetty 7 integration in. Doing this before (1) might > be a good idea. > > > thanks > david jencks > > > > 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 >> > > > > >
