Tx manager component versions

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

I'm thinking of porting the work to deal with retrying stuff that  
didnt work (GERONIMO-5152) in the tx manager component from trunk back  
to the 2.1 branch.  However, this changes the interaction between the  
connection management and the tx manager quite a bit -- the tx manager  
can now request an XAResource from the connection management rather  
than just getting handed one when a pool starts up.

So, I'm wondering what appropriate versions would be.  I think that  
continuing 2.1.x is inappropriate for this size change.  I think this  
would be an osgi major version bump.  So at least it should go to  
2.2... and trunk to 3.0

Another possibility would be 2.1 >> 3.0 and trunk >> 4.0 which is more  
consistent with osgi versions.

thoughts?

thanks
david jencks

Re: Tx manager component versions

[Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>]

Agree with Kevan's proposed versioning.

-Donald


On 3/16/10 7:36 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> 
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> 
>> I'm thinking of porting the work to deal with retrying stuff that didnt work (GERONIMO-5152) in the tx manager component from trunk back to the 2.1 branch.  However, this changes the interaction between the connection management and the tx manager quite a bit -- the tx manager can now request an XAResource from the connection management rather than just getting handed one when a pool starts up.
>>
>> So, I'm wondering what appropriate versions would be.  I think that continuing 2.1.x is inappropriate for this size change.  I think this would be an osgi major version bump.  So at least it should go to 2.2... and trunk to 3.0
>>
>> Another possibility would be 2.1 >> 3.0 and trunk >> 4.0 which is more consistent with osgi versions.
>>
>> thoughts?
> 
> 
> Would be great to have these updates available for G 2.1.x and G 2.2.x servers! Personally, I think moving the tx-manager branch to 2.2 and tx-manager trunk to 3.0 would be just fine. I don't think the OSGi version scheme has much bearing for consumers of 2.1 and the new 2.2. 3.0 gives you a major version bump where you most need it -- where you have the most OSGi consumers and where the spec version bumps. I won't have a strong objection to moving branch to 3.0, if that's what is decided. Just strikes me as slightly confusing...
> 
> --kevan

Re: Tx manager component versions

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> I'm thinking of porting the work to deal with retrying stuff that didnt work (GERONIMO-5152) in the tx manager component from trunk back to the 2.1 branch.  However, this changes the interaction between the connection management and the tx manager quite a bit -- the tx manager can now request an XAResource from the connection management rather than just getting handed one when a pool starts up.
> 
> So, I'm wondering what appropriate versions would be.  I think that continuing 2.1.x is inappropriate for this size change.  I think this would be an osgi major version bump.  So at least it should go to 2.2... and trunk to 3.0
> 
> Another possibility would be 2.1 >> 3.0 and trunk >> 4.0 which is more consistent with osgi versions.
> 
> thoughts?


Would be great to have these updates available for G 2.1.x and G 2.2.x servers! Personally, I think moving the tx-manager branch to 2.2 and tx-manager trunk to 3.0 would be just fine. I don't think the OSGi version scheme has much bearing for consumers of 2.1 and the new 2.2. 3.0 gives you a major version bump where you most need it -- where you have the most OSGi consumers and where the spec version bumps. I won't have a strong objection to moving branch to 3.0, if that's what is decided. Just strikes me as slightly confusing...

--kevan