You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2008/06/27 03:56:18 UTC
3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming
release and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of
went cold on the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me
thinking that maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to
get the word out there.
If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and
improvements with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to
talking with him was that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1
packed release. But really we already have a few great EJB 3.1
features like the embedded testing stuff and ejbs in wars.
Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB
3.1 and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
Thoughts?
-David
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:56 AM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB 3.1
> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
+1 for OpenEJB 3.1
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 3.1
I agree with the idea of having a 3.1 release for the exposure David
want to have for the project on either InfoQ or TSS - exposure is very
important - but we have to make a release notice that 3.1 is not so
related to the EJB 3.1 - I mean to notify users that OEJB 3.1 is
partial impl of the full EJB 3.1 specs - this way we get the interest
of users to try what we already have of EJB 3.1 and make them so
looking forward the upcomming releases of OEJB to try the more
complete impl of EJB 3.1.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 support?
>> 3.x or 4.0?
>
> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth.
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Starting on 3.1 (was: Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Alright. Going to start wrapping things up. Will post binaries
hopefully soon.
-David
On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:22 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I don't know if my opinion is really important, but I think it's
>> time to
>> release something (some fixes are very important and the list is
>> full).
>>
>> Regarding 3.0.1 vs 3.1, +1 for 3.1 !
>
> Yea, we should definitely start rolling some binaries.
>
> What does everyone think about the 15th for a sort of "get
> everything wrapped up and start the release process" date?
>
> -David
>
>
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 1, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't know if my opinion is really important, but I think it's
> time to
> release something (some fixes are very important and the list is
> full).
>
> Regarding 3.0.1 vs 3.1, +1 for 3.1 !
Yea, we should definitely start rolling some binaries.
What does everyone think about the 15th for a sort of "get everything
wrapped up and start the release process" date?
-David
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Good thing to know thanks Martijn :)
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The maven dependency would be:
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.openejb</groupId>
> <artifactId>openejb</artifactId>
> <version>4.0</version>
> <classifier>ejb31</classifier>
> </dependency>
>
> Martijn
>
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2008, at 7:34 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You could of course adopt a more contrived numbering scheme:
>>>
>>> openejb-4.0-ejb31.jar
>>>
>>> using the maven classifiers as a way to denote which version of ejb
>>> you'd
>>> like to support. This opens up the possibility to support both
>>> ejb-3.0 and
>>> ejb 3.1 with a open ejb 4.0 release (which might introduce specific
>>> features
>>> that provide upwards compatibility to ejb 3.1), though you really
>>> don't have
>>> to do so.
>>
>> I never took the time to figure out that classifier stuff. How would
>> one declare a maven dep on the above artifact?
>>
>>> Just my 2cts (was triggered by the referecne to Wicket :)
>>
>> We'll count it as $2 due to inflation :)
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19283089.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
The maven dependency would be:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.openejb</groupId>
<artifactId>openejb</artifactId>
<version>4.0</version>
<classifier>ejb31</classifier>
</dependency>
Martijn
David Blevins wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2008, at 7:34 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
>>
>> You could of course adopt a more contrived numbering scheme:
>>
>> openejb-4.0-ejb31.jar
>>
>> using the maven classifiers as a way to denote which version of ejb
>> you'd
>> like to support. This opens up the possibility to support both
>> ejb-3.0 and
>> ejb 3.1 with a open ejb 4.0 release (which might introduce specific
>> features
>> that provide upwards compatibility to ejb 3.1), though you really
>> don't have
>> to do so.
>
> I never took the time to figure out that classifier stuff. How would
> one declare a maven dep on the above artifact?
>
>> Just my 2cts (was triggered by the referecne to Wicket :)
>
> We'll count it as $2 due to inflation :)
>
> -David
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19283089.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 1, 2008, at 7:34 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> You could of course adopt a more contrived numbering scheme:
>
> openejb-4.0-ejb31.jar
>
> using the maven classifiers as a way to denote which version of ejb
> you'd
> like to support. This opens up the possibility to support both
> ejb-3.0 and
> ejb 3.1 with a open ejb 4.0 release (which might introduce specific
> features
> that provide upwards compatibility to ejb 3.1), though you really
> don't have
> to do so.
I never took the time to figure out that classifier stuff. How would
one declare a maven dep on the above artifact?
> Just my 2cts (was triggered by the referecne to Wicket :)
We'll count it as $2 due to inflation :)
-David
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
You could of course adopt a more contrived numbering scheme:
openejb-4.0-ejb31.jar
using the maven classifiers as a way to denote which version of ejb you'd
like to support. This opens up the possibility to support both ejb-3.0 and
ejb 3.1 with a open ejb 4.0 release (which might introduce specific features
that provide upwards compatibility to ejb 3.1), though you really don't have
to do so.
Just my 2cts (was triggered by the referecne to Wicket :)
Martijn
mnour wrote:
>
> Hi Jean...
>
> Every opinion is important in this community :)
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
> <je...@atosorigin.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I don't know if my opinion is really important, but I think it's time to
>> release something (some fixes are very important and the list is full).
>>
>> Regarding 3.0.1 vs 3.1, +1 for 3.1 !
>>
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>>
>> mnour wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO we will not be able to sync OEJB releases versions the specs
>>> versions, because for sure we want and we do add new features to
>>> satisfy the needs of better EJB development using OEJB for our users.
>>> So documentation and release notices play a big role in that matter as
>>> it is the way users will know which EJB version(s) we support, this is
>>> beside the publicity that David talked about through whatever entity -
>>> InfoQ or TSS or both or someone else. I mean, lets follow the
>>> conventional versioning scheme, which is 3.x for new additions and
>>> features and 3.0.x for bug fixes, cause this is the expected scheme by
>>> most users, and we should not care - and we will not be able to follow
>>> the specs versions. But for this specific situation and for the sake
>>> of OEJB publicity , I vote for 3.1 release version as it will sound
>>> better in the ears of users and InfoQ and/or TSS readers as it is so
>>> related to the EJB 3.1 specs, but later we can follow our own release
>>> versioning as normal.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George
>>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
>>>>>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1
>>>>>> support?
>>>>>> 3.x or 4.0?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth.
>>>>
>>>> Heh. But InfoQ (or whoever) might not be interested in a 3.1.2
>>>> release...
>>>> Which is Manu's point, I think... Or at least it would be my point...
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Basing decisions on headline grabbing potential seems like a poor
>>>> starting
>>>> point for making this decision, IMO. Heck, if 3.1 will get a notice,
>>>> wouldn't a 4.0 release get a bigger headline? :-P I'll also note that
>>>> TSS
>>>> just ran an article for a 1.3.4 release of Wicket.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the project has one fundamental decision: Do you want to base
>>>> release
>>>> numbers on the supported EJB spec level? The ability of the project to
>>>> introduce new "features" is going to far outpace the ability of the JCP
>>>> to
>>>> generate new EJB spec version numbers. By convention, 3.0.1 would be a
>>>> bug-fix update of the 3.0 release. New "features" do find their way
>>>> into
>>>> bug-fix releases, but you'd usually expect most new features to appear
>>>> in
>>>> 3.x releases. However, that doesn't mean you absolutely *must* follow
>>>> the
>>>> convention... Allowing 3.0.x releases to introduce new features. It's
>>>> then a
>>>> matter of communicating the content. On the other hand, a 3.x release
>>>> clearly communicates new function.
>>>>
>>>> I'm ok with either direction. A few additional thoughts...
>>>>
>>>> Would be nice to discuss what users might want... Discussing releases a
>>>> bit
>>>> further in advance would give committers a chance to target new
>>>> capabilities
>>>> for them, etc...
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks
>>> - Mohammad Nour
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19254861.html
>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19255717.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jean...
Every opinion is important in this community :)
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
<je...@atosorigin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't know if my opinion is really important, but I think it's time to
> release something (some fixes are very important and the list is full).
>
> Regarding 3.0.1 vs 3.1, +1 for 3.1 !
>
> Jean-Louis
>
>
> mnour wrote:
>>
>> IMO we will not be able to sync OEJB releases versions the specs
>> versions, because for sure we want and we do add new features to
>> satisfy the needs of better EJB development using OEJB for our users.
>> So documentation and release notices play a big role in that matter as
>> it is the way users will know which EJB version(s) we support, this is
>> beside the publicity that David talked about through whatever entity -
>> InfoQ or TSS or both or someone else. I mean, lets follow the
>> conventional versioning scheme, which is 3.x for new additions and
>> features and 3.0.x for bug fixes, cause this is the expected scheme by
>> most users, and we should not care - and we will not be able to follow
>> the specs versions. But for this specific situation and for the sake
>> of OEJB publicity , I vote for 3.1 release version as it will sound
>> better in the ears of users and InfoQ and/or TSS readers as it is so
>> related to the EJB 3.1 specs, but later we can follow our own release
>> versioning as normal.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
>>>>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 support?
>>>>> 3.x or 4.0?
>>>>
>>>> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth.
>>>
>>> Heh. But InfoQ (or whoever) might not be interested in a 3.1.2 release...
>>> Which is Manu's point, I think... Or at least it would be my point... ;-)
>>>
>>> Basing decisions on headline grabbing potential seems like a poor
>>> starting
>>> point for making this decision, IMO. Heck, if 3.1 will get a notice,
>>> wouldn't a 4.0 release get a bigger headline? :-P I'll also note that TSS
>>> just ran an article for a 1.3.4 release of Wicket.
>>>
>>> IMO, the project has one fundamental decision: Do you want to base
>>> release
>>> numbers on the supported EJB spec level? The ability of the project to
>>> introduce new "features" is going to far outpace the ability of the JCP
>>> to
>>> generate new EJB spec version numbers. By convention, 3.0.1 would be a
>>> bug-fix update of the 3.0 release. New "features" do find their way into
>>> bug-fix releases, but you'd usually expect most new features to appear in
>>> 3.x releases. However, that doesn't mean you absolutely *must* follow the
>>> convention... Allowing 3.0.x releases to introduce new features. It's
>>> then a
>>> matter of communicating the content. On the other hand, a 3.x release
>>> clearly communicates new function.
>>>
>>> I'm ok with either direction. A few additional thoughts...
>>>
>>> Would be nice to discuss what users might want... Discussing releases a
>>> bit
>>> further in advance would give committers a chance to target new
>>> capabilities
>>> for them, etc...
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks
>> - Mohammad Nour
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19254861.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@atosorigin.com>.
Hi all,
I don't know if my opinion is really important, but I think it's time to
release something (some fixes are very important and the list is full).
Regarding 3.0.1 vs 3.1, +1 for 3.1 !
Jean-Louis
mnour wrote:
>
> IMO we will not be able to sync OEJB releases versions the specs
> versions, because for sure we want and we do add new features to
> satisfy the needs of better EJB development using OEJB for our users.
> So documentation and release notices play a big role in that matter as
> it is the way users will know which EJB version(s) we support, this is
> beside the publicity that David talked about through whatever entity -
> InfoQ or TSS or both or someone else. I mean, lets follow the
> conventional versioning scheme, which is 3.x for new additions and
> features and 3.0.x for bug fixes, cause this is the expected scheme by
> most users, and we should not care - and we will not be able to follow
> the specs versions. But for this specific situation and for the sake
> of OEJB publicity , I vote for 3.1 release version as it will sound
> better in the ears of users and InfoQ and/or TSS readers as it is so
> related to the EJB 3.1 specs, but later we can follow our own release
> versioning as normal.
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
>>>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 support?
>>>> 3.x or 4.0?
>>>
>>> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth.
>>
>> Heh. But InfoQ (or whoever) might not be interested in a 3.1.2 release...
>> Which is Manu's point, I think... Or at least it would be my point... ;-)
>>
>> Basing decisions on headline grabbing potential seems like a poor
>> starting
>> point for making this decision, IMO. Heck, if 3.1 will get a notice,
>> wouldn't a 4.0 release get a bigger headline? :-P I'll also note that TSS
>> just ran an article for a 1.3.4 release of Wicket.
>>
>> IMO, the project has one fundamental decision: Do you want to base
>> release
>> numbers on the supported EJB spec level? The ability of the project to
>> introduce new "features" is going to far outpace the ability of the JCP
>> to
>> generate new EJB spec version numbers. By convention, 3.0.1 would be a
>> bug-fix update of the 3.0 release. New "features" do find their way into
>> bug-fix releases, but you'd usually expect most new features to appear in
>> 3.x releases. However, that doesn't mean you absolutely *must* follow the
>> convention... Allowing 3.0.x releases to introduce new features. It's
>> then a
>> matter of communicating the content. On the other hand, a 3.x release
>> clearly communicates new function.
>>
>> I'm ok with either direction. A few additional thoughts...
>>
>> Would be nice to discuss what users might want... Discussing releases a
>> bit
>> further in advance would give committers a chance to target new
>> capabilities
>> for them, etc...
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19254861.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Well, I think it will not be a lot of work or a difficult task if we
all co-operated to work on it. I agree with what you and David said,
and IMHO if this way is th right way to go so lets do it, as long as
it will be for the benefit of the project.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:54 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Good to see some feedback. There's a potential flaw in the question
>> "3.0.1 or 3.1", the "or" part. I suppose *and* is an option too.
>
> Right. Definitely good to discuss. My read
>
>>
>>
>> We could release a 3.0.1 and 3.1 beta x. 3.0.x would be stable, no new
>> EJB 3.1 apis, 3.1 beta x for the people who want to play
>>
>> Pros:
>> - Gives users more choice
>
> - Gives developers more freedom. 3.1 development would have more freedom
> to break existing 3.0 api's,
> - The 3.1 spec is still changing. Possible that a new feature will be
> implemented, and then removed from the spec... Or api's may be changed in
> non-backward compatible manner.
> - The 3.1 dev branch would not not need to be compliant with the 3.0 spec.
> At the moment, trunk is the only means of delivering 3.0 fixes. So there are
> some expectations that trunk will be consumable as a 3.0 compliant
> implementation.
>
>>
>> Cons:
>> - Could create a lot of work
>
> Right. Maybe not a *lot*, but definitely more work. Maintaining multiple
> branches, merging fixes, etc can be difficult.
>
> I did think about this issue, earlier. My read was the community was working
> pretty well with trunk as the development/maintenance branch and didn't,
> yet, need the additional overhead of maintaining multiple branches.
>
> --kevan
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
>
> We could default it to 3.0 and have people switch to 3.1 if they need the
> 3.1 functionality.
>
Meant to say,default is 3.1
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 2, 2008, at 8:40 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
>>
>>
>> Another thing I was thinking is that we might be able to come up
>> with some
>> way to disable the EJB 3.1 functionality for those who need to be
>> guaranteed
>> they're only using EJB 3.0 or lower.
>
> This is a good idea. A system property like openejb.compliance=3.0 .
> We
> could default it to 3.0 and have people switch to 3.1 if they need
> the 3.1
> functionality.
On Aug 2, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
> Meant to say,default is 3.1
Right. That'd be one we'd want to enable on a per ejb module basis
via the openejb-jar.xml properties.
> Would be nice to see something released soon. Our examples on our
> download
> page are already old and some do not work because of bugs (which are
> already
> fixed in trunk) or dependencies on versions which do not exist in
> repositories.
I think the webservice example is the only one that will cause
problems, but that's enough. We also have way more examples than we
do html pages to accompany them.
Overall, release wise I'd like to get the last of the singleton stuff
in and add the no-interface bean view and then get rid of asm as a
dependency by using the shade plugin.
-David
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
>
>
> Another thing I was thinking is that we might be able to come up with some
> way to disable the EJB 3.1 functionality for those who need to be guaranteed
> they're only using EJB 3.0 or lower.
>
This is a good idea. A system property like openejb.compliance=3.0 . We
could default it to 3.0 and have people switch to 3.1 if they need the 3.1
functionality.
Would be nice to see something released soon. Our examples on our download
page are already old and some do not work because of bugs (which are already
fixed in trunk) or dependencies on versions which do not exist in
repositories.
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it a possibility that we quietly release 3.0.1 (which includes all the
> bug fixes). Then in a couple of weeks release 3.1 and make a big
> announcement about it. This way we can post both the releases on our
> website, keep the trunk as the main dev area (no branches) and will still
> give people an option to download either the 3.0 version (without 3.1
> features) and/or the 3.1 version.
How we can do this if we will keep everything in the trunk ? - I am
talking about people who need to download source code from our SVN
repo.
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> I did think about this issue, earlier. My read was the community was
>>> working pretty well with trunk as the development/maintenance branch and
>>> didn't, yet, need the additional overhead of maintaining multiple branches.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's probably right.
>>
>> Another thing I was thinking is that we might be able to come up with some
>> way to disable the EJB 3.1 functionality for those who need to be guaranteed
>> they're only using EJB 3.0 or lower.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1?
Posted by "C. Bergström" <cb...@netsyncro.com>.
Karan Malhi wrote:
> Is it a possibility that we quietly release 3.0.1 (which includes all the
> bug fixes). Then in a couple of weeks release 3.1 and make a big
> announcement about it. This way we can post both the releases on our
> website, keep the trunk as the main dev area (no branches) and will still
> give people an option to download either the 3.0 version (without 3.1
> features) and/or the 3.1 version.
>
From my reading of this discussion this is the most logical suggestion
which has a nice balance.
+1
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Is it a possibility that we quietly release 3.0.1 (which includes all the
bug fixes). Then in a couple of weeks release 3.1 and make a big
announcement about it. This way we can post both the releases on our
website, keep the trunk as the main dev area (no branches) and will still
give people an option to download either the 3.0 version (without 3.1
features) and/or the 3.1 version.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> I did think about this issue, earlier. My read was the community was
>> working pretty well with trunk as the development/maintenance branch and
>> didn't, yet, need the additional overhead of maintaining multiple branches.
>>
>
> I think that's probably right.
>
> Another thing I was thinking is that we might be able to come up with some
> way to disable the EJB 3.1 functionality for those who need to be guaranteed
> they're only using EJB 3.0 or lower.
>
> -David
>
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I did think about this issue, earlier. My read was the community was
> working pretty well with trunk as the development/maintenance branch
> and didn't, yet, need the additional overhead of maintaining
> multiple branches.
I think that's probably right.
Another thing I was thinking is that we might be able to come up with
some way to disable the EJB 3.1 functionality for those who need to be
guaranteed they're only using EJB 3.0 or lower.
-David
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:54 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Good to see some feedback. There's a potential flaw in the question
> "3.0.1 or 3.1", the "or" part. I suppose *and* is an option too.
Right. Definitely good to discuss. My read
>
>
> We could release a 3.0.1 and 3.1 beta x. 3.0.x would be stable, no
> new EJB 3.1 apis, 3.1 beta x for the people who want to play
>
> Pros:
> - Gives users more choice
- Gives developers more freedom. 3.1 development would have more
freedom to break existing 3.0 api's,
- The 3.1 spec is still changing. Possible that a new feature will
be implemented, and then removed from the spec... Or api's may be
changed in non-backward compatible manner.
- The 3.1 dev branch would not not need to be compliant with the
3.0 spec. At the moment, trunk is the only means of delivering 3.0
fixes. So there are some expectations that trunk will be consumable as
a 3.0 compliant implementation.
>
> Cons:
> - Could create a lot of work
Right. Maybe not a *lot*, but definitely more work. Maintaining
multiple branches, merging fixes, etc can be difficult.
I did think about this issue, earlier. My read was the community was
working pretty well with trunk as the development/maintenance branch
and didn't, yet, need the additional overhead of maintaining multiple
branches.
--kevan
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Good to see some feedback. There's a potential flaw in the question
"3.0.1 or 3.1", the "or" part. I suppose *and* is an option too.
We could release a 3.0.1 and 3.1 beta x. 3.0.x would be stable, no
new EJB 3.1 apis, 3.1 beta x for the people who want to play
Pros:
- Gives users more choice
Cons:
- Could create a lot of work
I have to split for the night, but if people could help fill in some
pros and cons that'd be great. Feel free to elaborate.. I definitely
will as soon as I get some more time to think. Binary feedback (i.e.
+1, -1) is fine but some more detailed feedback is great for
brainstorming.
-David
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
IMO we will not be able to sync OEJB releases versions the specs
versions, because for sure we want and we do add new features to
satisfy the needs of better EJB development using OEJB for our users.
So documentation and release notices play a big role in that matter as
it is the way users will know which EJB version(s) we support, this is
beside the publicity that David talked about through whatever entity -
InfoQ or TSS or both or someone else. I mean, lets follow the
conventional versioning scheme, which is 3.x for new additions and
features and 3.0.x for bug fixes, cause this is the expected scheme by
most users, and we should not care - and we will not be able to follow
the specs versions. But for this specific situation and for the sake
of OEJB publicity , I vote for 3.1 release version as it will sound
better in the ears of users and InfoQ and/or TSS readers as it is so
related to the EJB 3.1 specs, but later we can follow our own release
versioning as normal.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
>>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 support?
>>> 3.x or 4.0?
>>
>> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth.
>
> Heh. But InfoQ (or whoever) might not be interested in a 3.1.2 release...
> Which is Manu's point, I think... Or at least it would be my point... ;-)
>
> Basing decisions on headline grabbing potential seems like a poor starting
> point for making this decision, IMO. Heck, if 3.1 will get a notice,
> wouldn't a 4.0 release get a bigger headline? :-P I'll also note that TSS
> just ran an article for a 1.3.4 release of Wicket.
>
> IMO, the project has one fundamental decision: Do you want to base release
> numbers on the supported EJB spec level? The ability of the project to
> introduce new "features" is going to far outpace the ability of the JCP to
> generate new EJB spec version numbers. By convention, 3.0.1 would be a
> bug-fix update of the 3.0 release. New "features" do find their way into
> bug-fix releases, but you'd usually expect most new features to appear in
> 3.x releases. However, that doesn't mean you absolutely *must* follow the
> convention... Allowing 3.0.x releases to introduce new features. It's then a
> matter of communicating the content. On the other hand, a 3.x release
> clearly communicates new function.
>
> I'm ok with either direction. A few additional thoughts...
>
> Would be nice to discuss what users might want... Discussing releases a bit
> further in advance would give committers a chance to target new capabilities
> for them, etc...
>
> --kevan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1
>> support?
>> 3.x or 4.0?
>
> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth.
Heh. But InfoQ (or whoever) might not be interested in a 3.1.2
release... Which is Manu's point, I think... Or at least it would be
my point... ;-)
Basing decisions on headline grabbing potential seems like a poor
starting point for making this decision, IMO. Heck, if 3.1 will get a
notice, wouldn't a 4.0 release get a bigger headline? :-P I'll also
note that TSS just ran an article for a 1.3.4 release of Wicket.
IMO, the project has one fundamental decision: Do you want to base
release numbers on the supported EJB spec level? The ability of the
project to introduce new "features" is going to far outpace the
ability of the JCP to generate new EJB spec version numbers. By
convention, 3.0.1 would be a bug-fix update of the 3.0 release. New
"features" do find their way into bug-fix releases, but you'd usually
expect most new features to appear in 3.x releases. However, that
doesn't mean you absolutely *must* follow the convention... Allowing
3.0.x releases to introduce new features. It's then a matter of
communicating the content. On the other hand, a 3.x release clearly
communicates new function.
I'm ok with either direction. A few additional thoughts...
Would be nice to discuss what users might want... Discussing releases
a bit further in advance would give committers a chance to target new
capabilities for them, etc...
--kevan
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 support?
> 3.x or 4.0?
3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1.
So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 support?
3.x or 4.0?
Regards
Manu
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:00 AM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> The drawbacks of beta are:
> - We're not going to get an announcewill thement out of anyone (InfoQ, TSS) until
> it's a major version. Don't think we can afford to be that quiet.
> - betas are "off limits" for a lot of people, so they'll just keep using
> 3.0 final. But trunk is generally a much improved version of 3.0 (i.e. more
> solid).
>
> David
>
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Manu George wrote:
>
>> I see the logic in Karan's suggestion. I would also prefer 3.1 beta.
>> Maybe 3.1 beta1 assuming we may have a beta 2 in the works later
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was also thinking that 3.1-beta might be an option too. This way we get
>>> to
>>> announce twice, once for 3.1-beta and once for 3.1 . We also get to keep
>>> the
>>> release in sync with EJB 3.1 .
>>> Just a thought, but I guess I am too late in expressing my opinion , as
>>> the
>>> voting already started and most people agree upon EJB 3.1. So, I will
>>> give
>>> my +1 to EJB 3.1 too :) .
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
>>>>
>>>> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming
>>>> release
>>>> and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went cold
>>>> on
>>>> the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking that
>>>> maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the word out
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and improvements
>>>> with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with him was
>>>> that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But
>>>> really we
>>>> already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded testing
>>>> stuff
>>>> and ejbs in wars.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB
>>>> 3.1
>>>> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karan Singh Malhi
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
The drawbacks of beta are:
- We're not going to get an announcement out of anyone (InfoQ, TSS)
until it's a major version. Don't think we can afford to be that quiet.
- betas are "off limits" for a lot of people, so they'll just keep
using 3.0 final. But trunk is generally a much improved version of
3.0 (i.e. more solid).
David
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Manu George wrote:
> I see the logic in Karan's suggestion. I would also prefer 3.1 beta.
> Maybe 3.1 beta1 assuming we may have a beta 2 in the works later
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I was also thinking that 3.1-beta might be an option too. This way
>> we get to
>> announce twice, once for 3.1-beta and once for 3.1 . We also get to
>> keep the
>> release in sync with EJB 3.1 .
>> Just a thought, but I guess I am too late in expressing my
>> opinion , as the
>> voting already started and most people agree upon EJB 3.1. So, I
>> will give
>> my +1 to EJB 3.1 too :) .
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
>>>
>>> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the
>>> upcoming release
>>> and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went
>>> cold on
>>> the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking
>>> that
>>> maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the
>>> word out
>>> there.
>>>
>>> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and
>>> improvements
>>> with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with
>>> him was
>>> that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But
>>> really we
>>> already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded
>>> testing stuff
>>> and ejbs in wars.
>>>
>>> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it
>>> OpenEJB 3.1
>>> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karan Singh Malhi
>>
>
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>.
I see the logic in Karan's suggestion. I would also prefer 3.1 beta.
Maybe 3.1 beta1 assuming we may have a beta 2 in the works later
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was also thinking that 3.1-beta might be an option too. This way we get to
> announce twice, once for 3.1-beta and once for 3.1 . We also get to keep the
> release in sync with EJB 3.1 .
> Just a thought, but I guess I am too late in expressing my opinion , as the
> voting already started and most people agree upon EJB 3.1. So, I will give
> my +1 to EJB 3.1 too :) .
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
>>>
>>
>> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
>>
>> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming release
>> and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went cold on
>> the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking that
>> maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the word out
>> there.
>>
>> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and improvements
>> with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with him was
>> that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But really we
>> already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded testing stuff
>> and ejbs in wars.
>>
>> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB 3.1
>> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
I was also thinking that 3.1-beta might be an option too. This way we get to
announce twice, once for 3.1-beta and once for 3.1 . We also get to keep the
release in sync with EJB 3.1 .
Just a thought, but I guess I am too late in expressing my opinion , as the
voting already started and most people agree upon EJB 3.1. So, I will give
my +1 to EJB 3.1 too :) .
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
>>
>
> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
>
> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming release
> and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went cold on
> the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking that
> maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the word out
> there.
>
> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and improvements
> with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with him was
> that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But really we
> already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded testing stuff
> and ejbs in wars.
>
> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB 3.1
> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1?
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Another +1` for making the release 3.1.
David Blevins wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
>
> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
>
> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming
> release and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of
> went cold on the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me
> thinking that maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to
> get the word out there.
>
> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and
> improvements with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to
> talking with him was that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1
> packed release. But really we already have a few great EJB 3.1
> features like the embedded testing stuff and ejbs in wars.
>
> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB
> 3.1 and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>
>
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 for OpenEJB 3.1
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Daniel S. Haischt
<da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> +1 for OpenEJB 3.1
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:56 AM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
>>
>> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
>>
>> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming release
>> and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went cold on
>> the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking that
>> maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the word out
>> there.
>>
>> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and improvements
>> with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with him was
>> that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But really we
>> already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded testing stuff
>> and ejbs in wars.
>>
>> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB 3.1
>> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
Re: 3.0.1 or 3.1? (was: Re: Getting near release time)
Posted by "Daniel S. Haischt" <da...@googlemail.com>.
+1 for OpenEJB 3.1
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:56 AM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here.
>
> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1.
>
> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming release
> and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went cold on
> the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking that
> maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the word out
> there.
>
> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and improvements
> with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with him was
> that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But really we
> already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded testing stuff
> and ejbs in wars.
>
> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB 3.1
> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>
>