You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2009/04/01 20:40:53 UTC
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
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
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
Posted by Bill Stoddard <wg...@gmail.com>.
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
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
+1 on both Jetty 7 as default and 2.2 branch creation.
-Jack
2009/5/20 David Jencks <da...@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
>
> <!--<jetty>jetty6</jetty>-->
> <jetty>jetty7</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 <ke...@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
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
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
>
> <!--<jetty>jetty6</jetty>-->
> <jetty>jetty7</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.miller@gmail.com
>>>> <ma...@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
Posted by David Jencks <da...@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
<!--<jetty>jetty6</jetty>-->
<jetty>jetty7</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 <ke...@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
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
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
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
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 <ke...@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
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@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
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
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 <ke...@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
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
>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 <da...@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 <ke...@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
Posted by Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>.
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-4504>Another question is
per http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/plugin-based-farming.html
<http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/plugin-based-farming.html>We 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 <da...@yahoo.com>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.
>
> 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 <ke...@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
Posted by David Jencks <da...@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 <ke...@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
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ke...@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
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@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
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
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
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
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
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
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
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
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
Re: Thinking about a 2.2 release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
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
>
>
>
>