database pool portlet needs a big port from 1.1 branch to trunk

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

The database pool portlet code is dramatically different and better  
in the 1.1 branch than in trunk.  I've been hoping Aaron (original  
author of the improvements) would find some time to port these but I  
see some changes going into  trunk that do not look like a forward port.

Does anyone have the time and/or interest to study this and merge the  
changes?

thanks
david jencks

Re: database pool portlet needs a big port from 1.1 branch to trunk

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

Looking more closely it looks like paul has just ported the largest  
such difference so this email can probably be ignored.

Sorry for the alarmism :-)

Many thanks to Paul for doing this port, it has been at the back of  
my mind for months now.

thanks
david jencks

On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:24 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> The database pool portlet code is dramatically different and better  
> in the 1.1 branch than in trunk.  I've been hoping Aaron (original  
> author of the improvements) would find some time to port these but  
> I see some changes going into  trunk that do not look like a  
> forward port.
>
> Does anyone have the time and/or interest to study this and merge  
> the changes?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>

Re: database pool portlet needs a big port from 1.1 branch to trunk

[Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>]

You are welcome Paul.  And thank you for taking care of GERONIMO-2553
promptly.  I have been addressing the JIRA's due to be fixed in 1.1.2 and
1.1.x.  and when I am trying to apply those fixes to trunk, I am finding
that some very basic things are failing in the Admin Console.  Admin Console
needs to be tested because some of the other changes seems to have broken
some portlets.  Though it may not be possible to test everything thoroughly
after applying a fix, a minimum amount of testing should be done before
committing the fix to svn.  In the past two days, I have noticed problems
with SecurityRealm and DatabasePool portlets.  There are still some problems
with SecurityRealm portlet.  Testing the fixes is a long process.  Past two
days, I have noticed that building the server to test a fix is taking 3
times the time spent on the actual fix :o(.  We need some improvement to the
build process.

--vamsi

On 11/7/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,  I ported the change that externalizes the database driver info
> into GBeans.  Next I plan to look at the list of pending merges in
> all_changes.log and move those forward if necessary.  Then I'll take
> an overall look at the console to see what else might have been left
> behind or just needs some tweaking :-)    Vamsi has been helping look
> into this too (thanks Vamsi!).
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On 11/7/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > The database pool portlet code is dramatically different and better
> > in the 1.1 branch than in trunk.  I've been hoping Aaron (original
> > author of the improvements) would find some time to port these but I
> > see some changes going into  trunk that do not look like a forward port.
> >
> > Does anyone have the time and/or interest to study this and merge the
> > changes?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >
>

Re: database pool portlet needs a big port from 1.1 branch to trunk

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

David,  I ported the change that externalizes the database driver info
into GBeans.  Next I plan to look at the list of pending merges in
all_changes.log and move those forward if necessary.  Then I'll take
an overall look at the console to see what else might have been left
behind or just needs some tweaking :-)    Vamsi has been helping look
into this too (thanks Vamsi!).

Best wishes,
Paul

On 11/7/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The database pool portlet code is dramatically different and better
> in the 1.1 branch than in trunk.  I've been hoping Aaron (original
> author of the improvements) would find some time to port these but I
> see some changes going into  trunk that do not look like a forward port.
>
> Does anyone have the time and/or interest to study this and merge the
> changes?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>