Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
+1 on both Jetty 7 as default and 2.2 branch creation. -Jack 2009/5/20 David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com I've moved the jetty7 integration from my sandbox into trunk. It's always built but not used by default. To use jetty7 rather than jetty6 run maven with -Djetty=jetty7 or change the commenting in the root pom to !--jettyjetty6/jetty-- jettyjetty7/jetty The Jaspic implementation seems to be working pretty well with the tck. At this point I'd like to branch 2.2 off and integration the classloading stuff I did in my framework sandbox. I don't really anticipate any more large-scale changes to 2.2, just fixes for various issues such as the mdb problems. Alternatively I could create a branch of all of geronimo to play more with classloading. However I'd rather this stuff was in the bright light of trunk development. I'd also like to switch to using jetty7 by default. Comments? thanks david jencks On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:50 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to: 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution. For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in. We finally got the tck from sun. I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run. If we can get it in we can probably also get the jetty 7 integration in. Doing this before (1) might be a good idea. thanks david jencks thanks david jencks And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
Both ideas sound okay to me, as I would also like to start looking at pulling OpenJPA 2 into trunk for EE 6... Only suggestion, would be to start a new discussion thread with a clear subject of something like Branching 2.2 in xx days to catch everyone's attention. -Donald David Jencks wrote: I've moved the jetty7 integration from my sandbox into trunk. It's always built but not used by default. To use jetty7 rather than jetty6 run maven with -Djetty=jetty7 or change the commenting in the root pom to !--jettyjetty6/jetty-- jettyjetty7/jetty The Jaspic implementation seems to be working pretty well with the tck. At this point I'd like to branch 2.2 off and integration the classloading stuff I did in my framework sandbox. I don't really anticipate any more large-scale changes to 2.2, just fixes for various issues such as the mdb problems. Alternatively I could create a branch of all of geronimo to play more with classloading. However I'd rather this stuff was in the bright light of trunk development. I'd also like to switch to using jetty7 by default. Comments? thanks david jencks On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:50 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to: 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution. For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in. We finally got the tck from sun. I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run. If we can get it in we can probably also get the jetty 7 integration in. Doing this before (1) might be a good idea. thanks david jencks thanks david jencks And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com mailto:kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
I've moved the jetty7 integration from my sandbox into trunk. It's always built but not used by default. To use jetty7 rather than jetty6 run maven with -Djetty=jetty7 or change the commenting in the root pom to !--jettyjetty6/jetty-- jettyjetty7/jetty The Jaspic implementation seems to be working pretty well with the tck. At this point I'd like to branch 2.2 off and integration the classloading stuff I did in my framework sandbox. I don't really anticipate any more large-scale changes to 2.2, just fixes for various issues such as the mdb problems. Alternatively I could create a branch of all of geronimo to play more with classloading. However I'd rather this stuff was in the bright light of trunk development. I'd also like to switch to using jetty7 by default. Comments? thanks david jencks On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:50 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to: 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution. For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in. We finally got the tck from sun. I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run. If we can get it in we can probably also get the jetty 7 integration in. Doing this before (1) might be a good idea. thanks david jencks thanks david jencks And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release- roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:50 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. Ouch. At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to: 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution. I agree, in general. My only question would be why branch 2.2 *now*? My only concern is it might be too soon and we'll be merging more changes from branches/2.2 into trunk than we'd like. Either way (branch now or branch in a week or two) I agree with the above. For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in. We finally got the tck from sun. I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run. If we can get it in we can probably also get the jetty 7 integration in. Doing this before (1) might be a good idea. Ah. So, I'd agree with that. Sounds like we're of the same general mind... Some general progress on the server TCK would also be valuable. --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
If possible, I would like to be involved in the server TCK progress. For I am new in this area, not sure whether there are any points need to be care while looking at those failed issues.Any comment ? Ivan 2009/4/24 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:50 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. Ouch. At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to: 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution. I agree, in general. My only question would be why branch 2.2 *now*? My only concern is it might be too soon and we'll be merging more changes from branches/2.2 into trunk than we'd like. Either way (branch now or branch in a week or two) I agree with the above. For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in. We finally got the tck from sun. I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run. If we can get it in we can probably also get the jetty 7 integration in. Doing this before (1) might be a good idea. Ah. So, I'd agree with that. Sounds like we're of the same general mind... Some general progress on the server TCK would also be valuable. --kevan -- Ivan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Ivan wrote: If possible, I would like to be involved in the server TCK progress. For I am new in this area, not sure whether there are any points need to be care while looking at those failed issues. Any comment ? Sure, any committer can help out with the TCK. I don't recall the process these days though. -David
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. At the moment I think a reasonable strategy would be to: 1. branch 2.2 off of trunk now 2. merge in the classloader work from my sandbox framework and local copy 3. upgrade trunk version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT 4. work on using osgi classloading instead of our homegrown solution. For 2.2 it would be nice to get jaspi officially OK and in. We finally got the tck from sun. I haven't looked at it yet to try to figure out how hard it will be to adapt to our tck setup or to run. If we can get it in we can probably also get the jetty 7 integration in. Doing this before (1) might be a good idea. thanks david jencks thanks david jencks And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. 55 seconds to start... that's really bad in comparison to the server today. The full Tomcat JEE5 assembly on my MBP will start in something like 20 seconds.. a minimal assembly under 10 seconds. I've been seeing reports that JBoss 5 is slow and bloated compared to earlier releases... seems to be the natural evolution of app servers. Is the performane hit related to the design (classloader per jar) or something in how the design is implemented? Bill
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 22, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:42 PM, David Jencks wrote: I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. I finally got the server to run with the one-classloader-per-jar setup. After struggling with this for a couple of weeks and seeing the difficultly of correctly configuring classloaders I don't think we should put this into 2.2. For one thing classloading seems to be pretty slow: it takes about 55 seconds to start the jetty-jee5 server. 55 seconds to start... that's really bad in comparison to the server today. The full Tomcat JEE5 assembly on my MBP will start in something like 20 seconds.. a minimal assembly under 10 seconds. I've been seeing reports that JBoss 5 is slow and bloated compared to earlier releases... seems to be the natural evolution of app servers. Is the performane hit related to the design (classloader per jar) or something in how the design is implemented? I had enough trouble getting the server to start I haven't done any profiling to find out what the slowdown is actually caused by. I assume that its because the classloader graph is now about 4 to 8 times larger and has a lot of duplication in it and no optimization. I heard a rumor somewhere once that in order to perform well osgi classloading needs indexing so a classloader knows where to look for a class it doesn't load itself. I imagine we now have exactly the same problem. I expect that with a bit of work -- such as actually using osgi -- classloading will be at least as fast as it was before these changes. david jencks Bill
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
From my side, the JMS portlet update is done. JMS Server Portlet: a. Allow user the add/remove borker b. Remove the functions of adding/editing/removing the connector, for it could be done via editing the borker xml file. JMS Resource Portlet: a. Update the codes to support more than one broker in the embbed ActiveMQ If possible, I wish some one could help to review it, not sure whether I miss anything. Thanks ! Ivan 2009/4/16 David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. thanks david jencks And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan -- Ivan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
For (4) I'd tested the 2.2 basic farm function and opened a JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4504 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4504Another question is per http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/plugin-based-farming.html http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/plugin-based-farming.htmlWe did some test but found some problems in the doc. So we are not sure if it's working now. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.comwrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. thanks david jencks And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan -- Shawn
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release -Donald Joe Bohn wrote: I agree. It would seem prudent to get 2.2 released with javaee 5 and the improvements already in place. I think it would be great if we could release the ee6 preview features as independent plugins (not sure if that is what you meant but that seems to be Donald's proposal). I think that would simplify the release if possible and allow ee6 features to be worked and released after Geronimo 2.2. However, I'm sure there is some upfront work to remove the integration that has already taken place. I'm not sure if it is possible to release the ee 6 features independently but it would certainly be nice if we could. Joe David Jencks wrote: I wonder if we should think about a 2.2 release based on javaee 5. Trunk has a lot of improvements over 2.1 and I think it would be good for our users to get something out before we do any really major osgi-related refactorings. It would be great if we could provide javaee 6 previews for the stuff we have done but this seems less essential to me at the moment given the rapidly receding timeline for the ee6 spec. Stuff that makes plugins a lot easier: -- transitive dependencies from maven in car-maven-plugin -- gbean annotations -- classloader-per-jar (not yet in trunk) updated external project support: jaspi support (still needs tck) jetty 7 (@eclipse, this will now be servlet 2.5 compliant) activemq 5 potential ee6 features: openejb ejb 3.1 support connector 1.6 support jetty 8 (proposed) servelt 3.0 support openjpa jpa 2.0 support (??? not sure how far along this is) I wonder if we can release these somewhat separately as early access plugins. what do people think? thanks david jencks
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3- SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. thanks david jencks -Donald Joe Bohn wrote: I agree. It would seem prudent to get 2.2 released with javaee 5 and the improvements already in place. I think it would be great if we could release the ee6 preview features as independent plugins (not sure if that is what you meant but that seems to be Donald's proposal). I think that would simplify the release if possible and allow ee6 features to be worked and released after Geronimo 2.2. However, I'm sure there is some upfront work to remove the integration that has already taken place. I'm not sure if it is possible to release the ee 6 features independently but it would certainly be nice if we could. Joe David Jencks wrote: I wonder if we should think about a 2.2 release based on javaee 5. Trunk has a lot of improvements over 2.1 and I think it would be good for our users to get something out before we do any really major osgi-related refactorings. It would be great if we could provide javaee 6 previews for the stuff we have done but this seems less essential to me at the moment given the rapidly receding timeline for the ee6 spec. Stuff that makes plugins a lot easier: -- transitive dependencies from maven in car-maven-plugin -- gbean annotations -- classloader-per-jar (not yet in trunk) updated external project support: jaspi support (still needs tck) jetty 7 (@eclipse, this will now be servlet 2.5 compliant) activemq 5 potential ee6 features: openejb ejb 3.1 support connector 1.6 support jetty 8 (proposed) servelt 3.0 support openjpa jpa 2.0 support (??? not sure how far along this is) I wonder if we can release these somewhat separately as early access plugins. what do people think? thanks david jencks
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3-SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Jack Cai wrote: I agree that a 2.2 release would be nice to do to push out things already in trunk, before our users wait for too long. :-) I'm reviewing the list of planned features [1] and current status [2] of 2.2. The latter [2] is more up-to-date. It would be good to make clear the areas that need some more work, so that people like me can jump in and help. Currently the major development items I see - 1. TCK, need a committer to do the job 2. MDB problems mentioned above 3. JMS portlets update mentioned above 4. Farm/cluster management (do we still want this in 2.2?) What's the problem with (4)? I've been assuming that the classloader work Gianny and I have been working on in my sandbox would get into 2.2. At the moment I think I have the classloader framework more or less working and I'm going through the plugins working on setting up the required jar dependencies. Only some of them can be derived from maven dependencies. This is turning out to be a somewhat slow process. thanks david jencks And of course there are also testing and doc work. Please complement and elaborate if necessary. [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-roadmap.html [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-22-release-status.html - Jack 2009/4/16 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Jencks wrote: On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Donald Woods wrote: Should we try reverting trunk (2.2) to use the same levels of OpenEJB and Axis as in the recent 2.1.4 release, to see how close we would be to a release that passes the TCK? That way, ActiveMQ 5.3- SNAPSHOT would be the major difference left to resolve for a 2.2 release I think it would be more worthwhile to look into what is going wrong with the mdbs. David Blevins doesn't think any mdb-related openejb code changed and ActiveMQ broke at least one other thing since the last time mdbs worked well. I agree. FYI, I tried to get TCK fired up, but am having some issues. David, have your run tck recently? Let's discuss on tck mailing list... What's the status of JMS resources and the Admin Console? Seem to recall some missing function... --kevan
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
Agree, that there is enough in trunk to warrant a 2.2 release before moving on to OSGi and JEE6 work items. IMHO, any EE6 preview items should be installable plugins not included in the full JEE5 assemblies, especially given the legal restriction we have in the JPA2 Spec (and possibly other EE6 specs) that includes the 2.(iii) clause is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only, which effectively blocks us from releasing artifacts implementing those specs until they're finalized. -Donald David Jencks wrote: I wonder if we should think about a 2.2 release based on javaee 5. Trunk has a lot of improvements over 2.1 and I think it would be good for our users to get something out before we do any really major osgi-related refactorings. It would be great if we could provide javaee 6 previews for the stuff we have done but this seems less essential to me at the moment given the rapidly receding timeline for the ee6 spec. Stuff that makes plugins a lot easier: -- transitive dependencies from maven in car-maven-plugin -- gbean annotations -- classloader-per-jar (not yet in trunk) updated external project support: jaspi support (still needs tck) jetty 7 (@eclipse, this will now be servlet 2.5 compliant) activemq 5 potential ee6 features: openejb ejb 3.1 support connector 1.6 support jetty 8 (proposed) servelt 3.0 support openjpa jpa 2.0 support (??? not sure how far along this is) I wonder if we can release these somewhat separately as early access plugins. what do people think? thanks david jencks
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
I agree. It would seem prudent to get 2.2 released with javaee 5 and the improvements already in place. I think it would be great if we could release the ee6 preview features as independent plugins (not sure if that is what you meant but that seems to be Donald's proposal). I think that would simplify the release if possible and allow ee6 features to be worked and released after Geronimo 2.2. However, I'm sure there is some upfront work to remove the integration that has already taken place. I'm not sure if it is possible to release the ee 6 features independently but it would certainly be nice if we could. Joe David Jencks wrote: I wonder if we should think about a 2.2 release based on javaee 5. Trunk has a lot of improvements over 2.1 and I think it would be good for our users to get something out before we do any really major osgi-related refactorings. It would be great if we could provide javaee 6 previews for the stuff we have done but this seems less essential to me at the moment given the rapidly receding timeline for the ee6 spec. Stuff that makes plugins a lot easier: -- transitive dependencies from maven in car-maven-plugin -- gbean annotations -- classloader-per-jar (not yet in trunk) updated external project support: jaspi support (still needs tck) jetty 7 (@eclipse, this will now be servlet 2.5 compliant) activemq 5 potential ee6 features: openejb ejb 3.1 support connector 1.6 support jetty 8 (proposed) servelt 3.0 support openjpa jpa 2.0 support (??? not sure how far along this is) I wonder if we can release these somewhat separately as early access plugins. what do people think? thanks david jencks
Thinking about a 2.2 release
I wonder if we should think about a 2.2 release based on javaee 5. Trunk has a lot of improvements over 2.1 and I think it would be good for our users to get something out before we do any really major osgi- related refactorings. It would be great if we could provide javaee 6 previews for the stuff we have done but this seems less essential to me at the moment given the rapidly receding timeline for the ee6 spec. Stuff that makes plugins a lot easier: -- transitive dependencies from maven in car-maven-plugin -- gbean annotations -- classloader-per-jar (not yet in trunk) updated external project support: jaspi support (still needs tck) jetty 7 (@eclipse, this will now be servlet 2.5 compliant) activemq 5 potential ee6 features: openejb ejb 3.1 support connector 1.6 support jetty 8 (proposed) servelt 3.0 support openjpa jpa 2.0 support (??? not sure how far along this is) I wonder if we can release these somewhat separately as early access plugins. what do people think? thanks david jencks
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:40 AM, David Jencks wrote: I wonder if we should think about a 2.2 release based on javaee 5. Trunk has a lot of improvements over 2.1 and I think it would be good for our users to get something out before we do any really major osgi-related refactorings. It would be great if we could provide javaee 6 previews for the stuff we have done but this seems less essential to me at the moment given the rapidly receding timeline for the ee6 spec. A javaee 5 release using either OpenEJB 3.0.1 or 3.1.x would be good to see IMO. -David
