You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2008/07/10 20:47:51 UTC
For which server version(s) should we release samples?
We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are
multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them
has to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1
for the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same
samples working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the
same samples working on higher releases then I figured we would release
2.1.1 and 2.1.2+ versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder
if it is worth the effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
Here are the facts:
- We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a
2.1.2 server or even a 2.2 server.
- A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to
run them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released).
That seems like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we
release 2.1.1 samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point
users to leverage on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support
2.1.2+.
- Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they
primarily of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me,
users looking at samples will most likely be working with our latest
release. If we release samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use
them (assuming we release 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the
samples for 2.1.2)?
So these are the obvious choices:
1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for
2.1.1. Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries
in the 2.1.2 server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
OR
2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to
support the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support
samples on 2.1.1.
OR
3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases
with artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do
so on 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
There are a few potential issues with option #3:
- The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the
use of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the
installed directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However,
this plugin is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would
need to either release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the
compatibility trick with aliases again for 2.1.2.
- The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if
we release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the
groupid/module names of these samples back to the original names prior
to a release of them (which I doubt we would want to do).
Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
Joe
Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
The consensus is that we should release samples for 2.1.2 and not for
the prior releases. Hence, the issue that was identified for a 2.1.2
Server release regarding samples will be resolved by releasing the
samples specifically for the 2.1.2 server (and therefore there are no
compatibility issues attempting to run 2.1 or 2.1.1 samples on a 2.1.2
server). I have updated the our 2.1.2 plan in the wiki to indicate this
item is resolved.
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-212-release-plan.html
Thanks,
Joe
Joe Bohn wrote:
> We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are
> multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them
> has to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
>
> Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1
> for the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same
> samples working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the
> same samples working on higher releases then I figured we would release
> 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+ versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder
> if it is worth the effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
>
> Here are the facts:
> - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a
> 2.1.2 server or even a 2.2 server.
> - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
> 2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to
> run them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That
> seems like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we
> release 2.1.1 samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point
> users to leverage on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support
> 2.1.2+.
> - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they
> primarily of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me,
> users looking at samples will most likely be working with our latest
> release. If we release samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use
> them (assuming we release 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the
> samples for 2.1.2)?
>
> So these are the obvious choices:
> 1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for
> 2.1.1. Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries
> in the 2.1.2 server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
> OR
> 2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to
> support the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support
> samples on 2.1.1.
> OR
> 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases
> with artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do
> so on 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
>
> There are a few potential issues with option #3:
> - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the
> use of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the
> installed directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However,
> this plugin is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would
> need to either release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the
> compatibility trick with aliases again for 2.1.2.
> - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
> ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if
> we release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the
> groupid/module names of these samples back to the original names prior
> to a release of them (which I doubt we would want to do).
>
> Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
>
> Joe
>
Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 11, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Going once ... going twice ....
>
> Anybody that thinks we need to release samples for 2.1 and/or 2.1.1
> should speak up soon. So far the consensus is a 2.1.2 release only.
I think it's ok for the samples release to only be supported on 2.1.2
(and beyond).
--kevan
Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Posted by Shiva Kumar H R <sh...@gmail.com>.
My vote would also go to option 3 (makes life easy).
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Going once ... going twice ....
>
> Anybody that thinks we need to release samples for 2.1 and/or 2.1.1 should
> speak up soon. So far the consensus is a 2.1.2 release only.
>
> Thanks to those that responded.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are
>> multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them has
>> to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
>>
>> Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1 for
>> the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same samples
>> working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the same samples
>> working on higher releases then I figured we would release 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+
>> versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder if it is worth the
>> effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
>>
>> Here are the facts:
>> - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a 2.1.2
>> server or even a 2.2 server.
>> - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
>> 2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to
>> run them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That
>> seems like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we release
>> 2.1.1 samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point users to
>> leverage on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support 2.1.2+.
>> - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they
>> primarily of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me, users
>> looking at samples will most likely be working with our latest release. If
>> we release samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use them (assuming we
>> release 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the samples for 2.1.2)?
>>
>> So these are the obvious choices:
>> 1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for
>> 2.1.1. Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries in
>> the 2.1.2 server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
>> OR
>> 2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to support
>> the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support samples on
>> 2.1.1.
>> OR
>> 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases
>> with artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do so
>> on 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
>>
>> There are a few potential issues with option #3:
>> - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the
>> use of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the installed
>> directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However, this plugin
>> is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would need to either
>> release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the compatibility trick
>> with aliases again for 2.1.2.
>> - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
>> ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if we
>> release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the groupid/module
>> names of these samples back to the original names prior to a release of them
>> (which I doubt we would want to do).
>>
>> Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Shiva
Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Going once ... going twice ....
Anybody that thinks we need to release samples for 2.1 and/or 2.1.1
should speak up soon. So far the consensus is a 2.1.2 release only.
Thanks to those that responded.
Joe
Joe Bohn wrote:
> We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are
> multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them
> has to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
>
> Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1
> for the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same
> samples working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the
> same samples working on higher releases then I figured we would release
> 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+ versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder
> if it is worth the effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
>
> Here are the facts:
> - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a
> 2.1.2 server or even a 2.2 server.
> - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
> 2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to
> run them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That
> seems like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we
> release 2.1.1 samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point
> users to leverage on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support
> 2.1.2+.
> - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they
> primarily of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me,
> users looking at samples will most likely be working with our latest
> release. If we release samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use
> them (assuming we release 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the
> samples for 2.1.2)?
>
> So these are the obvious choices:
> 1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for
> 2.1.1. Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries
> in the 2.1.2 server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
> OR
> 2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to
> support the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support
> samples on 2.1.1.
> OR
> 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases
> with artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do
> so on 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
>
> There are a few potential issues with option #3:
> - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the
> use of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the
> installed directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However,
> this plugin is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would
> need to either release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the
> compatibility trick with aliases again for 2.1.2.
> - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
> ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if
> we release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the
> groupid/module names of these samples back to the original names prior
> to a release of them (which I doubt we would want to do).
>
> Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
>
> Joe
>
Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Posted by Jason Warner <ja...@gmail.com>.
My vote goes to option 3 as well for reasons already stated by Jarek.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Option #3. The 2.1 and 2.1.1 users should be upgrading to 2.1.2 anyway
> and I think it's ok to say that samples will not install with 2.1 or
> 2.1.1. And also we don't have too many (if any) people asking for
> these samples to run on 2.1 and 2.1.1.
>
> Jarek
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are
> > multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them
> has
> > to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
> >
> > Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1 for
> > the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same samples
> > working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the same
> samples
> > working on higher releases then I figured we would release 2.1.1 and
> 2.1.2+
> > versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder if it is worth the
> > effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
> >
> > Here are the facts:
> > - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a 2.1.2
> > server or even a 2.2 server.
> > - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
> > 2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to
> run
> > them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That
> seems
> > like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we release
> 2.1.1
> > samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point users to
> leverage
> > on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support 2.1.2+.
> > - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they
> primarily
> > of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me, users looking
> at
> > samples will most likely be working with our latest release. If we
> release
> > samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use them (assuming we release
> > 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the samples for 2.1.2)?
> >
> > So these are the obvious choices:
> > 1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for
> 2.1.1.
> > Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries in the
> 2.1.2
> > server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
> > OR
> > 2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to
> support
> > the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support samples on
> > 2.1.1.
> > OR
> > 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases
> with
> > artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do so on
> > 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
> >
> > There are a few potential issues with option #3:
> > - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the
> use
> > of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the installed
> > directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However, this
> plugin
> > is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would need to either
> > release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the compatibility
> trick
> > with aliases again for 2.1.2.
> > - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
> > ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if
> we
> > release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the groupid/module
> > names of these samples back to the original names prior to a release of
> them
> > (which I doubt we would want to do).
> >
> > Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
--
~Jason Warner
Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Option #3. The 2.1 and 2.1.1 users should be upgrading to 2.1.2 anyway
and I think it's ok to say that samples will not install with 2.1 or
2.1.1. And also we don't have too many (if any) people asking for
these samples to run on 2.1 and 2.1.1.
Jarek
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are
> multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them has
> to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
>
> Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1 for
> the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same samples
> working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the same samples
> working on higher releases then I figured we would release 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+
> versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder if it is worth the
> effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
>
> Here are the facts:
> - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a 2.1.2
> server or even a 2.2 server.
> - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
> 2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to run
> them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That seems
> like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we release 2.1.1
> samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point users to leverage
> on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support 2.1.2+.
> - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they primarily
> of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me, users looking at
> samples will most likely be working with our latest release. If we release
> samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use them (assuming we release
> 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the samples for 2.1.2)?
>
> So these are the obvious choices:
> 1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for 2.1.1.
> Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries in the 2.1.2
> server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
> OR
> 2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to support
> the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support samples on
> 2.1.1.
> OR
> 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases with
> artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do so on
> 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
>
> There are a few potential issues with option #3:
> - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the use
> of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the installed
> directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However, this plugin
> is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would need to either
> release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the compatibility trick
> with aliases again for 2.1.2.
> - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
> ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if we
> release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the groupid/module
> names of these samples back to the original names prior to a release of them
> (which I doubt we would want to do).
>
> Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
>
> Joe
>
Re: For which server version(s) should we release samples?
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Joe, thanks for starting the thread.
I'd vote for No. 3. I envision for any future maintenance release of
2.1, such as 2.1.3, we can just release a sample compatibility plugin,
if there is no other changes required.
I think No. 3 will make things manageable (we test samples with one
release instead of 3 releases) and make sure we have a good sample
solution to our user. I think users will be more frustrated if they
find out samples not working on a particular release when we say we
support them. If users want to use the samples, they need to
download G server 2.1.2, otherwise unexpected behavior can happen.
Isn't this same as if you want to use our GEP, you need to be on a
particular version of eclipse and JDK?
Lin
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are
> multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them has
> to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases.
>
> Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1 for
> the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same samples
> working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the same samples
> working on higher releases then I figured we would release 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+
> versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder if it is worth the
> effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2.
>
> Here are the facts:
> - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a 2.1.2
> server or even a 2.2 server.
> - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in
> 2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to run
> them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That seems
> like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we release 2.1.1
> samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point users to leverage
> on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support 2.1.2+.
> - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they primarily
> of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me, users looking at
> samples will most likely be working with our latest release. If we release
> samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use them (assuming we release
> 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the samples for 2.1.2)?
>
> So these are the obvious choices:
> 1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for 2.1.1.
> Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries in the 2.1.2
> server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2.
> OR
> 2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to support
> the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support samples on
> 2.1.1.
> OR
> 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases with
> artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do so on
> 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1.
>
> There are a few potential issues with option #3:
> - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the use
> of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the installed
> directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However, this plugin
> is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would need to either
> release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the compatibility trick
> with aliases again for 2.1.2.
> - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and
> ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if we
> release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the groupid/module
> names of these samples back to the original names prior to a release of them
> (which I doubt we would want to do).
>
> Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts?
>
> Joe
>