+1 On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, 8:01 AM Bhupendra <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > Bhupendra > Sent from phone > > > On 05-Mar-2015, at 8:32 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like JLouis original proposal regarding aligning it with the EE > versions. > > > > OpenEJB was EJB centric. Thus it was very closely bound to EJB spec > versions. > > TomEE is EE umbrella centric. Thus it is closely bound to the EE > umbrella spec version > > > > TomEE-1.7.x -> TomEE-6.0.x > > TomEE-2.0 -> TomEE-7.x > > > > That way it is really easy for users to know what they get! > > > > Maybe we let 1.7.x as it is, but we should really go for TomEE-7.0.0 > instead of 2.0 > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > >> Am 05.01.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro < > [email protected]>: > >> > >> Definitely useful thoughts Jon. > >> Thx for sharing. > >> > >> -- > >> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or > >>> propose anything too controversial :). > >>> > >>> What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release > plugin > >>> or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of: > >>> > >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release- > tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java > >>> )? > >>> I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good > option? > >>> > >>> That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB > numbers. > >>> My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be > >>> perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked > >>> quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both > to a > >>> version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would > require > >>> some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but > >>> aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE > 1.7.x > >>> / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB > 5.0 > >>> would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0. > >>> > >>> Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of > OpenEJB and > >>> TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing > >>> dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions > of > >>> OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be > concerned > >>> that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the > >>> releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release > for > >>> OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other. > >>> > >>> Hope that these are useful thoughts. > >>> > >>> Jon > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected] > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use > org.apache.tomee as > >>>> groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since > tomee is > >>>> the openejb name. > >>>> > >>>> We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to > >>> tomee > >>>> and assume we cant split both. > >>>> Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" < > [email protected]> > >>> a > >>>> écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2 > >>> different > >>>>> versions in the same tree. > >>>>> The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject > with > >>>> its > >>>>> own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other > dep > >>>>> (openjpa, cxf to name a few). > >>>>> > >>>>> Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided > >>> to > >>>>> stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB, > >>> etc > >>>>> with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some > >>> benefits > >>>>> but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a > different > >>>>> lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in > >>> the > >>>>> same tree. > >>>>> > >>>>> The problem I can see. > >>>>> - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous". > TomEE > >>> by > >>>>> itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching > >>>> from > >>>>> 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue > >>>>> considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions. > >>>>> > >>>>> - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as > previous > >>>> and > >>>>> no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or > Java > >>>> EE > >>>>> versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for > Java > >>>> EE 7 > >>>>> Web Profile, etc > >>>>> > >>>>> - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion > >>> and > >>>> as > >>>>> we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell. > >>>>> > >>>>> What's "the less worst" solution we could use? > >>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep > >>> the > >>>>> versions and split the source tree and the releases > >>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with > the > >>>>> same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE > version. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of > OpenEJB > >>>> 4.x > >>>>>> and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools > >>> virtually > >>>>>> impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We > >>>> shoot > >>>>>> ourselves in the foot with this one every time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another > option > >>>>>> would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention. > >>> The > >>>>>> issue is the version to use? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about > >>>> aligning > >>>>>> with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like > >>> TomEE/OpenEJB > >>>>> 7.x > >>>>>> for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Andy Gumbrecht > >>>>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > >>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > >
