You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2015/03/05 16:02:46 UTC
Re: Align TomEE version with Tomcat
I like JLouis original proposal regarding aligning it with the EE versions.
OpenEJB was EJB centric. Thus it was very closely bound to EJB spec versions.
TomEE is EE umbrella centric. Thus it is closely bound to the EE umbrella spec version
TomEE-1.7.x -> TomEE-6.0.x
TomEE-2.0 -> TomEE-7.x
That way it is really easy for users to know what they get!
Maybe we let 1.7.x as it is, but we should really go for TomEE-7.0.0 instead of 2.0
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 05.01.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
>
> Definitely useful thoughts Jon.
> Thx for sharing.
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or
>> propose anything too controversial :).
>>
>> What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release plugin
>> or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java
>> )?
>> I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good option?
>>
>> That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB numbers.
>> My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be
>> perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked
>> quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both to a
>> version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would require
>> some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but
>> aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE 1.7.x
>> / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB 5.0
>> would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0.
>>
>> Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of OpenEJB and
>> TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing
>> dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions of
>> OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be concerned
>> that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the
>> releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release for
>> OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other.
>>
>> Hope that these are useful thoughts.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use org.apache.tomee as
>>> groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since tomee is
>>> the openejb name.
>>>
>>> We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to
>> tomee
>>> and assume we cant split both.
>>> Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2
>> different
>>>> versions in the same tree.
>>>> The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject with
>>> its
>>>> own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other dep
>>>> (openjpa, cxf to name a few).
>>>>
>>>> Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided
>> to
>>>> stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB,
>> etc
>>>> with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some
>> benefits
>>>> but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a different
>>>> lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in
>> the
>>>> same tree.
>>>>
>>>> The problem I can see.
>>>> - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous". TomEE
>> by
>>>> itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching
>>> from
>>>> 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue
>>>> considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions.
>>>>
>>>> - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as previous
>>> and
>>>> no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or Java
>>> EE
>>>> versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for Java
>>> EE 7
>>>> Web Profile, etc
>>>>
>>>> - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion
>> and
>>> as
>>>> we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell.
>>>>
>>>> What's "the less worst" solution we could use?
>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep
>> the
>>>> versions and split the source tree and the releases
>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with the
>>>> same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <
>>> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of OpenEJB
>>> 4.x
>>>>> and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools
>> virtually
>>>>> impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We
>>> shoot
>>>>> ourselves in the foot with this one every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another option
>>>>> would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention.
>> The
>>>>> issue is the version to use?
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about
>>> aligning
>>>>> with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like
>> TomEE/OpenEJB
>>>> 7.x
>>>>> for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8?
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andy Gumbrecht
>>>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Align TomEE version with Tomcat
Posted by Carlos Chacín <cc...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, 8:01 AM Bhupendra <bh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Bhupendra
> Sent from phone
>
>
> On 05-Mar-2015, at 8:32 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > I like JLouis original proposal regarding aligning it with the EE
> versions.
> >
> > OpenEJB was EJB centric. Thus it was very closely bound to EJB spec
> versions.
> > TomEE is EE umbrella centric. Thus it is closely bound to the EE
> umbrella spec version
> >
> > TomEE-1.7.x -> TomEE-6.0.x
> > TomEE-2.0 -> TomEE-7.x
> >
> > That way it is really easy for users to know what they get!
> >
> > Maybe we let 1.7.x as it is, but we should really go for TomEE-7.0.0
> instead of 2.0
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >> Am 05.01.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>:
> >>
> >> Definitely useful thoughts Jon.
> >> Thx for sharing.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> >> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or
> >>> propose anything too controversial :).
> >>>
> >>> What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release
> plugin
> >>> or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of:
> >>>
> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release-
> tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java
> >>> )?
> >>> I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good
> option?
> >>>
> >>> That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB
> numbers.
> >>> My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be
> >>> perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked
> >>> quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both
> to a
> >>> version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would
> require
> >>> some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but
> >>> aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE
> 1.7.x
> >>> / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB
> 5.0
> >>> would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0.
> >>>
> >>> Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of
> OpenEJB and
> >>> TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing
> >>> dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions
> of
> >>> OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be
> concerned
> >>> that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the
> >>> releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release
> for
> >>> OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other.
> >>>
> >>> Hope that these are useful thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use
> org.apache.tomee as
> >>>> groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since
> tomee is
> >>>> the openejb name.
> >>>>
> >>>> We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to
> >>> tomee
> >>>> and assume we cant split both.
> >>>> Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
> >>> a
> >>>> écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2
> >>> different
> >>>>> versions in the same tree.
> >>>>> The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject
> with
> >>>> its
> >>>>> own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other
> dep
> >>>>> (openjpa, cxf to name a few).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided
> >>> to
> >>>>> stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB,
> >>> etc
> >>>>> with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some
> >>> benefits
> >>>>> but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a
> different
> >>>>> lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in
> >>> the
> >>>>> same tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem I can see.
> >>>>> - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous".
> TomEE
> >>> by
> >>>>> itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching
> >>>> from
> >>>>> 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue
> >>>>> considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as
> previous
> >>>> and
> >>>>> no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or
> Java
> >>>> EE
> >>>>> versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for
> Java
> >>>> EE 7
> >>>>> Web Profile, etc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion
> >>> and
> >>>> as
> >>>>> we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's "the less worst" solution we could use?
> >>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep
> >>> the
> >>>>> versions and split the source tree and the releases
> >>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with
> the
> >>>>> same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE
> version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <
> >>>> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of
> OpenEJB
> >>>> 4.x
> >>>>>> and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools
> >>> virtually
> >>>>>> impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We
> >>>> shoot
> >>>>>> ourselves in the foot with this one every time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another
> option
> >>>>>> would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention.
> >>> The
> >>>>>> issue is the version to use?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about
> >>>> aligning
> >>>>>> with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like
> >>> TomEE/OpenEJB
> >>>>> 7.x
> >>>>>> for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Andy Gumbrecht
> >>>>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> >>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
>
Re: Align TomEE version with Tomcat
Posted by Bhupendra <bh...@gmail.com>.
+1
Bhupendra
Sent from phone
On 05-Mar-2015, at 8:32 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> I like JLouis original proposal regarding aligning it with the EE versions.
>
> OpenEJB was EJB centric. Thus it was very closely bound to EJB spec versions.
> TomEE is EE umbrella centric. Thus it is closely bound to the EE umbrella spec version
>
> TomEE-1.7.x -> TomEE-6.0.x
> TomEE-2.0 -> TomEE-7.x
>
> That way it is really easy for users to know what they get!
>
> Maybe we let 1.7.x as it is, but we should really go for TomEE-7.0.0 instead of 2.0
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>> Am 05.01.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>:
>>
>> Definitely useful thoughts Jon.
>> Thx for sharing.
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or
>>> propose anything too controversial :).
>>>
>>> What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release plugin
>>> or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of:
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java
>>> )?
>>> I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good option?
>>>
>>> That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB numbers.
>>> My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be
>>> perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked
>>> quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both to a
>>> version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would require
>>> some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but
>>> aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE 1.7.x
>>> / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB 5.0
>>> would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0.
>>>
>>> Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of OpenEJB and
>>> TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing
>>> dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions of
>>> OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be concerned
>>> that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the
>>> releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release for
>>> OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other.
>>>
>>> Hope that these are useful thoughts.
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use org.apache.tomee as
>>>> groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since tomee is
>>>> the openejb name.
>>>>
>>>> We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to
>>> tomee
>>>> and assume we cant split both.
>>>> Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" <jl...@tomitribe.com>
>>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2
>>> different
>>>>> versions in the same tree.
>>>>> The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject with
>>>> its
>>>>> own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other dep
>>>>> (openjpa, cxf to name a few).
>>>>>
>>>>> Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided
>>> to
>>>>> stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB,
>>> etc
>>>>> with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some
>>> benefits
>>>>> but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a different
>>>>> lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in
>>> the
>>>>> same tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem I can see.
>>>>> - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous". TomEE
>>> by
>>>>> itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching
>>>> from
>>>>> 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue
>>>>> considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as previous
>>>> and
>>>>> no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or Java
>>>> EE
>>>>> versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for Java
>>>> EE 7
>>>>> Web Profile, etc
>>>>>
>>>>> - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion
>>> and
>>>> as
>>>>> we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's "the less worst" solution we could use?
>>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep
>>> the
>>>>> versions and split the source tree and the releases
>>>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with the
>>>>> same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE version.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <
>>>> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of OpenEJB
>>>> 4.x
>>>>>> and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools
>>> virtually
>>>>>> impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We
>>>> shoot
>>>>>> ourselves in the foot with this one every time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another option
>>>>>> would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention.
>>> The
>>>>>> issue is the version to use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about
>>>> aligning
>>>>>> with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like
>>> TomEE/OpenEJB
>>>>> 7.x
>>>>>> for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Andy Gumbrecht
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
Re: Align TomEE version with Tomcat
Posted by Daniel Cunha <da...@gmail.com>.
Romain,
s/openejb/tomee/ +1
but the version synchronization with Java EE specification. TomEE
7.x.x, TomEE 8.x.x and beyond.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly I think we can't do anything else than 2.0 but s/openejb/tomee/
> and s/5.x/2.x/ will work if we move to org.apache.tomee.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
> <http://www.tomitribe.com>
>
> 2015-03-05 16:02 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>
>> I like JLouis original proposal regarding aligning it with the EE versions.
>>
>> OpenEJB was EJB centric. Thus it was very closely bound to EJB spec
>> versions.
>> TomEE is EE umbrella centric. Thus it is closely bound to the EE umbrella
>> spec version
>>
>> TomEE-1.7.x -> TomEE-6.0.x
>> TomEE-2.0 -> TomEE-7.x
>>
>> That way it is really easy for users to know what they get!
>>
>> Maybe we let 1.7.x as it is, but we should really go for TomEE-7.0.0
>> instead of 2.0
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 05.01.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>:
>> >
>> > Definitely useful thoughts Jon.
>> > Thx for sharing.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> > http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
>> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or
>> >> propose anything too controversial :).
>> >>
>> >> What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release
>> plugin
>> >> or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of:
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java
>> >> )?
>> >> I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good
>> option?
>> >>
>> >> That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB
>> numbers.
>> >> My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be
>> >> perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked
>> >> quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both
>> to a
>> >> version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would
>> require
>> >> some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but
>> >> aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE
>> 1.7.x
>> >> / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB
>> 5.0
>> >> would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0.
>> >>
>> >> Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of OpenEJB
>> and
>> >> TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing
>> >> dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions
>> of
>> >> OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be
>> concerned
>> >> that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the
>> >> releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release for
>> >> OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other.
>> >>
>> >> Hope that these are useful thoughts.
>> >>
>> >> Jon
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> >>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use org.apache.tomee
>> as
>> >>> groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since tomee
>> is
>> >>> the openejb name.
>> >>>
>> >>> We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to
>> >> tomee
>> >>> and assume we cant split both.
>> >>> Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com
>> >
>> >> a
>> >>> écrit :
>> >>>
>> >>>> I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2
>> >> different
>> >>>> versions in the same tree.
>> >>>> The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject with
>> >>> its
>> >>>> own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other dep
>> >>>> (openjpa, cxf to name a few).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided
>> >> to
>> >>>> stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB,
>> >> etc
>> >>>> with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some
>> >> benefits
>> >>>> but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a
>> different
>> >>>> lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in
>> >> the
>> >>>> same tree.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The problem I can see.
>> >>>> - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous". TomEE
>> >> by
>> >>>> itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching
>> >>> from
>> >>>> 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue
>> >>>> considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as previous
>> >>> and
>> >>>> no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or
>> Java
>> >>> EE
>> >>>> versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for Java
>> >>> EE 7
>> >>>> Web Profile, etc
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion
>> >> and
>> >>> as
>> >>>> we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What's "the less worst" solution we could use?
>> >>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep
>> >> the
>> >>>> versions and split the source tree and the releases
>> >>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with
>> the
>> >>>> same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE version.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <
>> >>> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of OpenEJB
>> >>> 4.x
>> >>>>> and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools
>> >> virtually
>> >>>>> impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We
>> >>> shoot
>> >>>>> ourselves in the foot with this one every time.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another option
>> >>>>> would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention.
>> >> The
>> >>>>> issue is the version to use?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about
>> >>> aligning
>> >>>>> with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like
>> >> TomEE/OpenEJB
>> >>>> 7.x
>> >>>>> for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Andy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Andy Gumbrecht
>> >>>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
>> >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
--
Best regard,
Daniel Cunha (soro)
Re: Align TomEE version with Tomcat
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Honestly I think we can't do anything else than 2.0 but s/openejb/tomee/
and s/5.x/2.x/ will work if we move to org.apache.tomee.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>
2015-03-05 16:02 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> I like JLouis original proposal regarding aligning it with the EE versions.
>
> OpenEJB was EJB centric. Thus it was very closely bound to EJB spec
> versions.
> TomEE is EE umbrella centric. Thus it is closely bound to the EE umbrella
> spec version
>
> TomEE-1.7.x -> TomEE-6.0.x
> TomEE-2.0 -> TomEE-7.x
>
> That way it is really easy for users to know what they get!
>
> Maybe we let 1.7.x as it is, but we should really go for TomEE-7.0.0
> instead of 2.0
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.01.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>:
> >
> > Definitely useful thoughts Jon.
> > Thx for sharing.
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or
> >> propose anything too controversial :).
> >>
> >> What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release
> plugin
> >> or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of:
> >>
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java
> >> )?
> >> I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good
> option?
> >>
> >> That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB
> numbers.
> >> My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be
> >> perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked
> >> quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both
> to a
> >> version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would
> require
> >> some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but
> >> aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE
> 1.7.x
> >> / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB
> 5.0
> >> would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0.
> >>
> >> Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of OpenEJB
> and
> >> TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing
> >> dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions
> of
> >> OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be
> concerned
> >> that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the
> >> releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release for
> >> OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other.
> >>
> >> Hope that these are useful thoughts.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use org.apache.tomee
> as
> >>> groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since tomee
> is
> >>> the openejb name.
> >>>
> >>> We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to
> >> tomee
> >>> and assume we cant split both.
> >>> Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" <jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com
> >
> >> a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2
> >> different
> >>>> versions in the same tree.
> >>>> The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject with
> >>> its
> >>>> own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other dep
> >>>> (openjpa, cxf to name a few).
> >>>>
> >>>> Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided
> >> to
> >>>> stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB,
> >> etc
> >>>> with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some
> >> benefits
> >>>> but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a
> different
> >>>> lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in
> >> the
> >>>> same tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem I can see.
> >>>> - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous". TomEE
> >> by
> >>>> itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching
> >>> from
> >>>> 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue
> >>>> considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions.
> >>>>
> >>>> - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as previous
> >>> and
> >>>> no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or
> Java
> >>> EE
> >>>> versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for Java
> >>> EE 7
> >>>> Web Profile, etc
> >>>>
> >>>> - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion
> >> and
> >>> as
> >>>> we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's "the less worst" solution we could use?
> >>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep
> >> the
> >>>> versions and split the source tree and the releases
> >>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with
> the
> >>>> same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE version.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht <
> >>> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of OpenEJB
> >>> 4.x
> >>>>> and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools
> >> virtually
> >>>>> impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We
> >>> shoot
> >>>>> ourselves in the foot with this one every time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another option
> >>>>> would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention.
> >> The
> >>>>> issue is the version to use?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about
> >>> aligning
> >>>>> with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like
> >> TomEE/OpenEJB
> >>>> 7.x
> >>>>> for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Andy Gumbrecht
> >>>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>