Re: Tx manager component versions
Agree with Kevan's proposed versioning. -Donald On 3/16/10 7:36 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:05 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> I'm thinking of porting the work to deal with retrying stuff that didnt work >> (GERONIMO-5152) in the tx manager component from trunk back to the 2.1 >> branch. However, this changes the interaction between the connection >> management and the tx manager quite a bit -- the tx manager can now request >> an XAResource from the connection management rather than just getting handed >> one when a pool starts up. >> >> So, I'm wondering what appropriate versions would be. I think that >> continuing 2.1.x is inappropriate for this size change. I think this would >> be an osgi major version bump. So at least it should go to 2.2... and trunk >> to 3.0 >> >> Another possibility would be 2.1 >> 3.0 and trunk >> 4.0 which is more >> consistent with osgi versions. >> >> thoughts? > > > Would be great to have these updates available for G 2.1.x and G 2.2.x > servers! Personally, I think moving the tx-manager branch to 2.2 and > tx-manager trunk to 3.0 would be just fine. I don't think the OSGi version > scheme has much bearing for consumers of 2.1 and the new 2.2. 3.0 gives you a > major version bump where you most need it -- where you have the most OSGi > consumers and where the spec version bumps. I won't have a strong objection > to moving branch to 3.0, if that's what is decided. Just strikes me as > slightly confusing... > > --kevan
Re: Tx manager component versions
On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:05 PM, David Jencks wrote: > I'm thinking of porting the work to deal with retrying stuff that didnt work > (GERONIMO-5152) in the tx manager component from trunk back to the 2.1 > branch. However, this changes the interaction between the connection > management and the tx manager quite a bit -- the tx manager can now request > an XAResource from the connection management rather than just getting handed > one when a pool starts up. > > So, I'm wondering what appropriate versions would be. I think that > continuing 2.1.x is inappropriate for this size change. I think this would > be an osgi major version bump. So at least it should go to 2.2... and trunk > to 3.0 > > Another possibility would be 2.1 >> 3.0 and trunk >> 4.0 which is more > consistent with osgi versions. > > thoughts? Would be great to have these updates available for G 2.1.x and G 2.2.x servers! Personally, I think moving the tx-manager branch to 2.2 and tx-manager trunk to 3.0 would be just fine. I don't think the OSGi version scheme has much bearing for consumers of 2.1 and the new 2.2. 3.0 gives you a major version bump where you most need it -- where you have the most OSGi consumers and where the spec version bumps. I won't have a strong objection to moving branch to 3.0, if that's what is decided. Just strikes me as slightly confusing... --kevan
Tx manager component versions
I'm thinking of porting the work to deal with retrying stuff that didnt work (GERONIMO-5152) in the tx manager component from trunk back to the 2.1 branch. However, this changes the interaction between the connection management and the tx manager quite a bit -- the tx manager can now request an XAResource from the connection management rather than just getting handed one when a pool starts up. So, I'm wondering what appropriate versions would be. I think that continuing 2.1.x is inappropriate for this size change. I think this would be an osgi major version bump. So at least it should go to 2.2... and trunk to 3.0 Another possibility would be 2.1 >> 3.0 and trunk >> 4.0 which is more consistent with osgi versions. thoughts? thanks david jencks
