Re: M2 -> Trunk Merge Complete

[Arnaud Simon <as...@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:06 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Robert Godfrey wrote:
> > Thanks for your hard work on this Martin,
> > 
> > much appreciated

Huge +1 

> 
> Arnaud is out for the week, but when he gets back I'll ask him to have a 
> look at the DTX issues and figure out what the deal is with store vs 
> messageStore.

I am not that surprised that we had problems with merging M2 with the
new dtx store. The dtx store fully replaces the previous store so I
think that Martin did the right thing by rolling it back to use the M2
store. 
I have implemented three new stores really, a in-memory one, a JDBC one
and a derby one. We need however to discuss the store interface during
our F2F. This new store aims in providing support for dtx that is a 0.10
feature. 
So, unless we currently still have issues running some tests (in such a
case I'll try to fix those issues) I would suggest that we make a
decision regarding the new store during our F2F. I'll make a
presentation about what I have done that could be a good starting point
for a discussion. 

What do you think? 

Arnaud

Re: M2 -> Trunk Merge Complete

[Arnaud Simon <as...@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 15:36 +0100, Martin Ritchie wrote:
> On 03/09/07, Arnaud Simon <as...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:06 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > > Robert Godfrey wrote:
> > > > Thanks for your hard work on this Martin,
> > > >
> > > > much appreciated
> >
> > Huge +1
> >
> > >
> > > Arnaud is out for the week, but when he gets back I'll ask him to have a
> > > look at the DTX issues and figure out what the deal is with store vs
> > > messageStore.
> >
> > I am not that surprised that we had problems with merging M2 with the
> > new dtx store. The dtx store fully replaces the previous store so I
> > think that Martin did the right thing by rolling it back to use the M2
> > store.
> > I have implemented three new stores really, a in-memory one, a JDBC one
> > and a derby one. We need however to discuss the store interface during
> > our F2F. This new store aims in providing support for dtx that is a 0.10
> > feature.
> > So, unless we currently still have issues running some tests (in such a
> > case I'll try to fix those issues) I would suggest that we make a
> > decision regarding the new store during our F2F. I'll make a
> > presentation about what I have done that could be a good starting point
> > for a discussion.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Arnaud
> 
> Sounds good. What was surprising though was the similarity between the
> interfaces in store and the new messageStore interfaces. As I could
> see there wasn't any between the MessageStore interfaces other than
> the repackaging which was one of the minor issues with the merge. Was
> the 'store' package left for any particular reason after the creation
> of the messageStore package? I agree that we should discuss this at
> our F2F.

I did not want to change everything I kept the old store and also
plugged the new store that has a very different interface. 

> Do we have any more concrete details on when this is going to be?
> Perhaps we need a thread to pull out the items we need to discuss.

I guess that this may happen sometime in October. We still need to
finalize that though. 
I am +1 for a thread for gathering the items we need to discuss.  

Re: M2 -> Trunk Merge Complete

[Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>]

On 03/09/07, Arnaud Simon <as...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:06 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > Robert Godfrey wrote:
> > > Thanks for your hard work on this Martin,
> > >
> > > much appreciated
>
> Huge +1
>
> >
> > Arnaud is out for the week, but when he gets back I'll ask him to have a
> > look at the DTX issues and figure out what the deal is with store vs
> > messageStore.
>
> I am not that surprised that we had problems with merging M2 with the
> new dtx store. The dtx store fully replaces the previous store so I
> think that Martin did the right thing by rolling it back to use the M2
> store.
> I have implemented three new stores really, a in-memory one, a JDBC one
> and a derby one. We need however to discuss the store interface during
> our F2F. This new store aims in providing support for dtx that is a 0.10
> feature.
> So, unless we currently still have issues running some tests (in such a
> case I'll try to fix those issues) I would suggest that we make a
> decision regarding the new store during our F2F. I'll make a
> presentation about what I have done that could be a good starting point
> for a discussion.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Arnaud

Sounds good. What was surprising though was the similarity between the
interfaces in store and the new messageStore interfaces. As I could
see there wasn't any between the MessageStore interfaces other than
the repackaging which was one of the minor issues with the merge. Was
the 'store' package left for any particular reason after the creation
of the messageStore package? I agree that we should discuss this at
our F2F.

Do we have any more concrete details on when this is going to be?
Perhaps we need a thread to pull out the items we need to discuss.

-- 
Martin Ritchie