date:20060612

Re: [Vote] 1.1-rc1 Now Available

2006-06-12 Thread David Jencks



I think that we may need to recut the release due to http:// 
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2108


Apparently I forgot to convert message-destination elements in  
geronimo plans to the naming namespace and as a consequence it is  
impossible to use them in web plans.  Aside from rewriting your spec  
dds to not use message-destination or renaming stuff to auto-resolve  
I don't know of a workaround.


I think I've fixed the issue but want to think if there are any more  
cases before I close it.


My apologies,

thanks
david jencks




Matt Hogstrom wrote:

I apologize for resending this to the lists.  I inadvertantly did not
put [vote] in the subject line so it may not have been apparent.  The
remainder of this e-mail is the same content that was distributed  
last

night.

Matt Hogstrom wrote:

Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised about
the first candidate have been addressed.

They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices  
from

the distribution.  I added them.  Guillaume also pointed out that he
noted that there should be a Third Party Notices.  This was not
included in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so I did not
follow it up.  Thoughts?

Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread
started by Hernan.  The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was the
source used to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will  
find in

the build.

To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used rc1
which Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions so I  
trust

that works here.

JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo
under CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new deployment
problem that left partially deployed artifacts in the repository.

I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and we
are significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0.  We have a  
lot of

improvement left for CMP EJBs.  It appears that the performance
improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race condition when  
running
under DB2.  I'm afraid that the only way to address the problem  
is to
add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB that allow for the  
specification
of Isolation Levels for individual beans.  This is a relatively  
simple
change but the build as it stands is specification compliant.  I  
would

prefer to let this release go forward since CMP 2.1 EJBs are not
nearly as common as the other J2EE components.  I would like to
address this in 1.1.1 however I don't think we've locked down  
whether

that would be allowed or not.  The change would affect TranQL and
OpenEJB so they are really included components so I'd be  
interested in

people's feedback.

So please accept a named RC1.  Your voting and feedback are for:

Geronimo 1.1
DayTrader 1.1
Specs 1.1

The vote will stand for 72 hours.  Issues raised will be  
discussed and
if we conclude that there is a bug that must be addressed then we  
will

mitigate the problem and respin a new rc for a 72 hour vote.

If this is accepted all three of the above components will be  
released

simultaneously.

Here are the builds for your review and comment:

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1- 
rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1- 
rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1- 
rc1.tar.gz


http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1- 
rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1- 
rc1.tar.gz


http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1- 
rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat- 
minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz


http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat- 
minimal-1.1-rc1.zip



http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip


Looking forward to your comments and feedback.

Re: [Vote] 1.1-rc1 Now Available

2006-06-12 Thread Matt Hogstrom

John,

I'm not aware of what does or does not go into the NOTICES file. If we need the notices does anyone
have a list of them lying around on their harddisk ?

Otherwise, any volunteers to pull them together?

Hernan, could you start a Wiki page for people to post their findings to?

Cheers,

Matt

John Sisson wrote:
I have started some due diligence checking on the release candidate and
have a few questions.

AFAIK, the NOTICE.txt file should contain required third-party
notices/attributions, yet it seems pretty empty to me.

For example, I was expecting to see the text from
http://www.bouncycastle.org/licence.html in there since we have a copy
of some of their code (no crypto though) in geronimo's util module. The
page on their website indicates that a notice may be required.

What about other 3rd party binaries that we include in the
distribution? For example, I had a quick look at the repository
directory in the assemblies and there are libraries we ship where their
project website requires attributions etc to be included with binary
distributions (e.g. ASM , http://asm.objectweb.org/license.html ).

Please speak up if I am misinterpreting the use of the NOTICE.txt file.

Thanks,

John

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I apologize for resending this to the lists. I inadvertantly did not
put [vote] in the subject line so it may not have been apparent. The
remainder of this e-mail is the same content that was distributed last
night.

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised about
the first candidate have been addressed.

They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices
from the distribution. I added them. Guillaume also pointed out
that he noted that there should be a Third Party Notices. This was
not included in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so I did
not follow it up. Thoughts?

Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread
started by Hernan. The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was the
source used to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will find in
the build.

To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used rc1
which Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions so I
trust that works here.

JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo
under CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new deployment
problem that left partially deployed artifacts in the repository.

I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and we
are significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0. We have a lot
of improvement left for CMP EJBs. It appears that the performance
improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race condition when
running under DB2. I'm afraid that the only way to address the
problem is to add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB that allow for the
specification of Isolation Levels for individual beans. This is a
relatively simple change but the build as it stands is specification
compliant. I would prefer to let this release go forward since CMP
2.1 EJBs are not nearly as common as the other J2EE components. I
would like to address this in 1.1.1 however I don't think we've
locked down whether that would be allowed or not. The change would
affect TranQL and OpenEJB so they are really included components so
I'd be interested in people's feedback.

So please accept a named RC1. Your voting and feedback are for:

Geronimo 1.1
DayTrader 1.1
Specs 1.1

The vote will stand for 72 hours. Issues raised will be discussed
and if we conclude that there is a bug that must be addressed then we
will mitigate the problem and respin a new rc for a 72 hour vote.

If this is accepted all three of the above components will be
released simultaneously.

Here are the builds for your review and comment:

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip

Looking forward to your comments and feedback.

[jira] Resolved: (AMQ-737) for consumers especially but for producers too, it'd be good to do a brief summary on the command line of the throughput

2006-06-12 Thread Adrian Co (JIRA)

 [ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-737?page=all ]
 
Adrian Co resolved AMQ-737:
---

Resolution: Fixed

Done.

> for consumers especially but for producers too, it'd be good to do a brief 
> summary on the command line of the throughput
> 
>
>  Key: AMQ-737
>  URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-737
>  Project: ActiveMQ
> Type: Improvement

>   Components: Performance Test
> Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: james strachan
> Assignee: Adrian Co
>  Fix For: 4.1

>
>
> e.g. after running
> mvn activemq-perf:consumer
> it'd be nice to output a little summary something like
> Average throughtput: 1234.45 message/second.
> For average calulation it might be nice to ignore the first couple or the 
> highest & lowest values or something.
> Also for multiple consumers inside the JVM it might be nice to show something 
> like...
> Average throughput : 5000 msg/sec. Average per consumer: 1000 msg/sec, Min 
> consumer: 200 msg/sec, Max consumer: 1400 msg/sec
> so its easy at a glance to get a feel for the results if you are running the 
> tests from a command line

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   https://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[jira] Commented: (AMQ-737) for consumers especially but for producers too, it'd be good to do a brief summary on the command line of the throughput

2006-06-12 Thread Adrian Co (JIRA)

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-737?page=comments#action_36321 ] 

Adrian Co commented on AMQ-737:
---

See the manual for usage.

> for consumers especially but for producers too, it'd be good to do a brief 
> summary on the command line of the throughput
> 
>
>  Key: AMQ-737
>  URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-737
>  Project: ActiveMQ
> Type: Improvement

>   Components: Performance Test
> Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: james strachan
> Assignee: Adrian Co
>  Fix For: 4.1

>
>
> e.g. after running
> mvn activemq-perf:consumer
> it'd be nice to output a little summary something like
> Average throughtput: 1234.45 message/second.
> For average calulation it might be nice to ignore the first couple or the 
> highest & lowest values or something.
> Also for multiple consumers inside the JVM it might be nice to show something 
> like...
> Average throughput : 5000 msg/sec. Average per consumer: 1000 msg/sec, Min 
> consumer: 200 msg/sec, Max consumer: 1400 msg/sec
> so its easy at a glance to get a feel for the results if you are running the 
> tests from a command line

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   https://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 238 matches

Mail list logo