David, I agree with pretty much everything you say below. I was playing Devil's advocate in my original comments. I didn't want us to jump the gun and was hoping for more input from others.
Yes, we should move forward with a Pluto 1.1 release with what we have right now although it probably will have to wait until after the holidays. Perhaps we should call it a Release Candidate at this point and move quickly toward a GA after its release. /Craig "David H. DeWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/06/2006 10:51:24 PM: > Craig, > > Thanks for the thoughts, I think you're correct in considering what the > users would want, and hopefully some of them will speak up. > > From my perspective, I think we should consider the following: > > 1) Pluto is about the container, all else is just gravy to make it > easier to test/use. As such, the quality should be based off of it. > > 2) We've gone through the cycles of implementing persistence before and > I really don't think it's all that important. The reality is, that > portals embedding pluto will provide their own services for that. From a > developer perspective, if you need a consistent page layout, then modify > the underlying config file once and you're good to go. > > 3) The biggest question to me is are we ready to guarantee binary > compatibility in the 1.1.x branch. If so, and we're confident in the > quality, then let's label it GA. > > 4) Just because we release the 1.1 container as GA, doesn't mean it's > the time for everyone to upgrade. If they depend on a portal feature in > 1.0.x (though I really doubt many people do), then there no reason why > they can't continue to depend on it. The fact of the matter is though, > that all work on 1.0.x has practically stopped. > > 5) The persistence mechanism we've discussed requires Java5. I'm > totally against requiring Java5 in 1.1. Do you have another alternative > that we should use in 1.1? If not, let's leave it for 1.2.x and just > start working on 1.2 immediately. > > 6) If your concern is that these features won't be released for a while > if they miss the 1.1 boat, then the real issue is that we're not > releasing often enough. I'm hoping that changes as we grow and more > portals depend upon us and more developers use pluto, but all of that > can only happen if we cut a release. That said, I have more time for > Open Source (Pluto, Struts, Tiles. . .) available now that I'm out on my > own and working gigs that actually use those projects, so I fully expect > to be able to help driver releases more often than every six months if > required :), YEA! > > Those are my thoughts, but I can also understand yours. Anyone else? > > > > David > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Thank you, David, for working through all the Jira issues you have for > > the past few days. It seems that Pluto 1.1 GA is in our sights. > > > > But, from a users standpoint, I'm not sure if releasing Pluto 1.1 > > without page layout or preferences persistence is such a good thing. It > > seems to be a step back from Pluto 1.0.1 which has both of those > > features. Again, I'm thinking about our users, who seem to largely use > > Pluto for portlet development. Imagine having to reset your page layout > > and preferences every time you have to restart the server while you are > > developing a portlet. That would be a real drag. They might not think > > the upgrade is worth it. > > > > It might be too late to do a simple preference persistence > > implementation (file based?) for Pluto 1.1 GA, but we might want to > > shoot for some sort of file persistence of the page layout stuff you > > created which simplifies the publishing process. We also need to make > > sure the maven and ant deployments work too (see PLUTO-257). > > > > Finally, we should look at the remaining outstanding Jira issues. > > PLUTO-234 particularly troubles me since it is the only testsuite test > > that fails. I will try to look at this and others as time allows. > > > > That's all I can think of right now. Please add your thoughts on this > > issue. > > /Craig
