The change is too big for a patch. I'd rather commit on a branch. Another option is to refactor it some more so that it becomes part of the new module that Nathan is working on. Either way, please let me know which way you prefer it. I have completed most of my clean up and the jms and mdb unit tests are once again passing with flying colors.
The mailing list does not seem to have received a couple of emails I sent a few days back. Is there something wrong with the mailing list? Regards, Hiram On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 13:01, Scott M Stark wrote: > Hiram, no one sits around for months without interacting with the day > to day developers of JBoss > Group and then decides to commit a large change without it being > discussed. Some of > what you have most likely has merit but it has to be reviewed so either > submit it as a patch > or commit it to a branch off of head so that it can be reviewed for > incorporation. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Scott Stark > Chief Technology Officer > JBoss Group, LLC > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > >> Hiram > >> Chirino > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:16 AM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite > >> > >> > >> Scott, > >> > >> Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing > >> from > >> the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months > >> for the new general purpose implementation to 'appear' and it has not. > > > > There has been a skeleton since early Jun. > > > > > >> So it's time for me to start the engine again and make some needed > >> improvements to the current JBossMQ implementation. > >> > > > > Where have you been the past year when Adrian and Scott have been > > fixing > > this buggy MQ implementation? You failed to keep up the old stuff so > > please > > don't make it sound like you're coming to the rescue. > > > > I'm not so sure I want a total refactoring of the old JMS in the > > remoting > > subsystem and the interceptor chains and such. The current JMS > > rewrite by > > Nathan, Adrian, and Bela is going quite well and we will be replacing > > the > > old system in the fall. > > > > What I don't want is a CVS HEAD of the old JMS that doesn't look like > > the > > 3.2 series since it will be much harder to migrate 3.2 fixes to a CVS > > HEAD > > that has been totally refactored. The old JMS needs to live a bit > > beyond > > 4.0's release and 4.0 will not be released until the late late fall, > > between > > Thanksgiving and Christmas. I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of > > users > > will still depend on the old JMS for at least another year and we need > > some > > to have fluidity between 3.2 and 4.0. We're already experiencing the > > pain > > of an unnecessary rewrite of the Entity Container that is making it > > difficult to merge fixes in 3.2 to 4.0. I don't want the same thing to > > happen with a codebase that is going to be retired eventually anyways > > and > > that needs to live in depracated mode for awhile. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > _______________________________________________ > JBoss-Development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development -- /************************** * Hiram Chirino * Partner * Core Developers Network **************************/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
