On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I am reluctant to back out the current code as we don't have an
> alternative at this time and so other stuff that depends on being able
> to load DDs will break. I suggest we stay with what we have until an
> alternative is available and then restart this discussion then.
Regardless of the technical merits, I think it's procedurally
wrong to call for a (vetoable) vote, get vetoed, and then claim that in
effect the vetos don't count because you've already committed the code.
Until the -1s are retracted, I think we have to assume that the code
should be removed, right?
I'm also a bit confused as to why you don't think there's an
alternative -- if you apply the code I sent originally (we could piece the
loader back together from JIRA 67 & 68, the EJB POJOs haven't changed, and
the J2EE POJOs would be simple enough to restore), you get a Geronimo EJB
DD that's separate from the J2EE EJB DD. I could send another patch if
that would be helpful.
On the technical merits, my preference would be to pursue this
conversation a little longer (now) and resolve the issue and put it behind
us.
Aaron
