You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2007/11/01 18:00:44 UTC
[DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more
solid platform for future enhancements, I think.
There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
missing a few other new functions.
Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
exposed.
I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
already started tugging on the TCK chain
What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
development activities in the next week or two?
--kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:35 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> 1. get rid of gbean proxies in gbean references. IIRC Dain did
> some experiments long ago and this resulted in a noticeable
> speedup. The problem at that time was that it broke the admin
> console. I think the main breakage was that attribute changes
> weren't saved??? I was wondering if we could leave the machinery
> to create proxies in place but not use it for gbean references and
> have the admin console explicitly request the proxies. Does anyone
> remember or know enough about this to comment on or refute this?
As I recall the main issue with getting rid of the automatic proxy
creation was that the console currently takes advantage of the fact
that they can be cast to GeronimoManagedBean, which allows the
console to do things like start/stop the gbean or get the gbean state
and uptime in a generic way without knowing the ObjectName in
advance. GeronimoManagedBean.getObjectName() is also pretty handy
for introspection purposes. So leaving the machinery in place to
support explicitly creating proxies would probably be required at
minimum.
But I like the idea of eliminating the automatic creation of proxies
- not only for the speedup but also because the automagically
generated src can drive me crazy when debugging. I know proxies can
be turned off via Dain's experimental system property but I'm usually
debugging the console, which needs them turned on. Catch-22.
If someone wants to create a patch for the kernel that implements
this idea then I can help assess the subsequent changes needed for
the console.
Best wishes.
Paul
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I thought of a couple more things we might consider trying to get
into 2.1.
1. get rid of gbean proxies in gbean references. IIRC Dain did some
experiments long ago and this resulted in a noticeable speedup. The
problem at that time was that it broke the admin console. I think
the main breakage was that attribute changes weren't saved??? I was
wondering if we could leave the machinery to create proxies in place
but not use it for gbean references and have the admin console
explicitly request the proxies. Does anyone remember or know enough
about this to comment on or refute this?
2. look up gbeans in jndi in the admin console. I really haven't
looked into whether this makes any sense at all, but we do now have
the ability to bind gbeans in jndi and IIRC we did not when most of
the console was originally written.
I doubt I will have time to work on either of these in the next
couple weeks but I think either one would make a reasonably small and
self contained project with noticeable benefits (particularly 1)
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 1, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
> release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
> enhancements, I think.
>
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
>
> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin.
> I'd also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that
> could be exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
> development activities in the next week or two?
>
> --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 1, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
> release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
> enhancements, I think.
>
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
>
> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin.
> I'd also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that
> could be exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
> development activities in the next week or two?
Let's try to wrap things up :-)
I have a few tweaks to the car-maven-plugin and plugin installer that
I think are nearly done (GERONIMO-3579). After that I'm planning to
clean up the plans and remove non-generated geronimo-plugin.xml files
and then convert LocalAttributeManager to use jaxb (GERONIMO-3580).
This should be pretty quick.
I think we need to make sure we're all happy with the versioning and
groupIds of the plugins following Prasad's build rearrangement.
I'm not sure how long we should allow for this. I hope in another
week we'll at least have a good idea if any more changes are needed.
We need to make sure all the security review changes get into trunk.
I don't really know the status of gshell. We might want to add a bit
more command functionality such as easily running the server with
remote debugging. I haven't had a chance to look into how to do
stuff like this.
thanks
david jencks
>
> --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Yep. It's time !
I really want to see how flexibly the user community will actually
build their servers.
I also wish we'd all spend some extra time and effort to check for
security issues in the server in general and in our individual domain
of expertise, in particular.
Cheers
Prasad
On 11/1/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
> There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
> to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more
> solid platform for future enhancements, I think.
>
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
>
> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
> exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
> development activities in the next week or two?
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Hey y'all,
> I started to map some of the new features/functions to the 2.1
> documentation.
>
> I just created a new wiki space http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21
> and created some initial entries. Pls chime in with your ideas for
> topics to cover but don't stop just there,
> feel free to start working out some content too if you feel
> compelled to do so ;-)
>
> Help with the documentation is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!
>
> I will be starting a separate thread on user@ for user feedback as
> well.
Thanks, Hernan. It looks like documentation may be our long pole for
getting a 2.1 release. I'll start looking at the required
documentation... Will help where I can.
I'll summarize the results of this thread, but may take me a day or two.
--kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On Nov 10, 2007 2:42 AM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I started a page on new plugin stuff over here... http://
> cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Plugin+Guide
Yay! I just meant to ask about such a guide. Awesome.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I thought I'd tried this but now it works!!
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Try $\{foo\}
>
> --jason
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 17:42:35
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
>
>
> I started a page on new plugin stuff over here... http://
> cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Plugin+Guide
> (next time maybe I'll look at where you want it :-( )
>
> I can't figure out how to get ${foo} to display without confluence
> thinking its a macro so any help there would be great.
>
> Please feel free to move this to wherever it will fit best and
> comment on all the stuff I left out :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> Hey y'all,
>> I started to map some of the new features/functions to the 2.1
>> documentation.
>>
>> I just created a new wiki space http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21
>> and created some initial entries. Pls chime in with your ideas for
>> topics to cover but don't stop just there,
>> feel free to start working out some content too if you feel
>> compelled to do so ;-)
>>
>> Help with the documentation is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!
>>
>> I will be starting a separate thread on user@ for user feedback as
>> well.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>> Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
>>> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/
>>> improvements
>>> - GShell
>>> - Console enhancements (dep plan generation, grouping/collapsing?)
>>> - Monitoring
>>> - Plugin infrastructure
>>> - Pluggable console
>>> - Security
>>> - Configuration (config.xml, config-subst, etc)
>>> - Deployment plans
>>> - Tooling
>>> - ...?
>>> We will also need a whole new set of documentation to cover these
>>> in GMOxDOC21.
>>> Anybody in desperate need for contributing docs for these
>>> features? ;-) it will be very much appreciated.
>>> Cheers!
>>> Hernan
>>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
>>>> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
>>>> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
>>>> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
>>>> enhancements, I think.
>>>>
>>>> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
>>>> missing a few other new functions.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin.
>>>> I'd also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that
>>>> could be exposed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
>>>> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>>>>
>>>> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
>>>> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
>>>> development activities in the next week or two?
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Try $\{foo\}
--jason
-----Original Message-----
From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 17:42:35
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
I started a page on new plugin stuff over here... http://
cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Plugin+Guide
(next time maybe I'll look at where you want it :-( )
I can't figure out how to get ${foo} to display without confluence
thinking its a macro so any help there would be great.
Please feel free to move this to wherever it will fit best and
comment on all the stuff I left out :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Hey y'all,
> I started to map some of the new features/functions to the 2.1
> documentation.
>
> I just created a new wiki space http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21
> and created some initial entries. Pls chime in with your ideas for
> topics to cover but don't stop just there,
> feel free to start working out some content too if you feel
> compelled to do so ;-)
>
> Help with the documentation is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!
>
> I will be starting a separate thread on user@ for user feedback as
> well.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Hernan Cunico wrote:
>> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
>> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/improvements
>> - GShell
>> - Console enhancements (dep plan generation, grouping/collapsing?)
>> - Monitoring
>> - Plugin infrastructure
>> - Pluggable console
>> - Security
>> - Configuration (config.xml, config-subst, etc)
>> - Deployment plans
>> - Tooling
>> - ...?
>> We will also need a whole new set of documentation to cover these
>> in GMOxDOC21.
>> Anybody in desperate need for contributing docs for these
>> features? ;-) it will be very much appreciated.
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
>>> release.
>>>
>>> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
>>> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
>>> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
>>> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
>>> enhancements, I think.
>>>
>>> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
>>> missing a few other new functions.
>>>
>>> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin.
>>> I'd also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that
>>> could be exposed.
>>>
>>> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
>>> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>>>
>>> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
>>> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
>>> development activities in the next week or two?
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Hey Dave,
for some reason my reply never went out.
This is great, let's keep it here on GMOxDEV while you still working on it and then we'll see how to include/move over the 2.1 doc.
Cheers!
Hernan
David Jencks wrote:
> I started a page on new plugin stuff over here...
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Plugin+Guide
> (next time maybe I'll look at where you want it :-( )
>
> I can't figure out how to get ${foo} to display without confluence
> thinking its a macro so any help there would be great.
>
> Please feel free to move this to wherever it will fit best and comment
> on all the stuff I left out :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> Hey y'all,
>> I started to map some of the new features/functions to the 2.1
>> documentation.
>>
>> I just created a new wiki space http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21
>> and created some initial entries. Pls chime in with your ideas for
>> topics to cover but don't stop just there,
>> feel free to start working out some content too if you feel compelled
>> to do so ;-)
>>
>> Help with the documentation is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!
>>
>> I will be starting a separate thread on user@ for user feedback as well.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>> Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
>>> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/improvements
>>> - GShell
>>> - Console enhancements (dep plan generation, grouping/collapsing?)
>>> - Monitoring
>>> - Plugin infrastructure
>>> - Pluggable console
>>> - Security
>>> - Configuration (config.xml, config-subst, etc)
>>> - Deployment plans
>>> - Tooling
>>> - ...?
>>> We will also need a whole new set of documentation to cover these in
>>> GMOxDOC21.
>>> Anybody in desperate need for contributing docs for these features?
>>> ;-) it will be very much appreciated.
>>> Cheers!
>>> Hernan
>>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
>>>>
>>>> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
>>>> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
>>>> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
>>>> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
>>>> enhancements, I think.
>>>>
>>>> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
>>>> missing a few other new functions.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
>>>> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
>>>> exposed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
>>>> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>>>>
>>>> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
>>>> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
>>>> development activities in the next week or two?
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I started a page on new plugin stuff over here... http://
cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Plugin+Guide
(next time maybe I'll look at where you want it :-( )
I can't figure out how to get ${foo} to display without confluence
thinking its a macro so any help there would be great.
Please feel free to move this to wherever it will fit best and
comment on all the stuff I left out :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Hey y'all,
> I started to map some of the new features/functions to the 2.1
> documentation.
>
> I just created a new wiki space http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21
> and created some initial entries. Pls chime in with your ideas for
> topics to cover but don't stop just there,
> feel free to start working out some content too if you feel
> compelled to do so ;-)
>
> Help with the documentation is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!
>
> I will be starting a separate thread on user@ for user feedback as
> well.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Hernan Cunico wrote:
>> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
>> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/improvements
>> - GShell
>> - Console enhancements (dep plan generation, grouping/collapsing?)
>> - Monitoring
>> - Plugin infrastructure
>> - Pluggable console
>> - Security
>> - Configuration (config.xml, config-subst, etc)
>> - Deployment plans
>> - Tooling
>> - ...?
>> We will also need a whole new set of documentation to cover these
>> in GMOxDOC21.
>> Anybody in desperate need for contributing docs for these
>> features? ;-) it will be very much appreciated.
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
>>> release.
>>>
>>> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
>>> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
>>> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
>>> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
>>> enhancements, I think.
>>>
>>> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
>>> missing a few other new functions.
>>>
>>> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin.
>>> I'd also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that
>>> could be exposed.
>>>
>>> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
>>> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>>>
>>> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
>>> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
>>> development activities in the next week or two?
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Hey y'all,
I started to map some of the new features/functions to the 2.1 documentation.
I just created a new wiki space http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21
and created some initial entries. Pls chime in with your ideas for topics to cover but don't stop just there,
feel free to start working out some content too if you feel compelled to do so ;-)
Help with the documentation is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!
I will be starting a separate thread on user@ for user feedback as well.
Cheers!
Hernan
Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
>
> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/improvements
>
> - GShell
> - Console enhancements (dep plan generation, grouping/collapsing?)
> - Monitoring
> - Plugin infrastructure
> - Pluggable console
> - Security
> - Configuration (config.xml, config-subst, etc)
> - Deployment plans
> - Tooling
> - ...?
>
> We will also need a whole new set of documentation to cover these in
> GMOxDOC21.
> Anybody in desperate need for contributing docs for these features? ;-)
> it will be very much appreciated.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
>>
>> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
>> There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
>> to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more
>> solid platform for future enhancements, I think.
>>
>> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
>> missing a few other new functions.
>>
>> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
>> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
>> exposed.
>>
>> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
>> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>>
>> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
>> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
>> development activities in the next week or two?
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:47 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
>>> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/
>>> improvements
>>>
>>> - GShell
>>
>> Are there any other GShell-related bits which we want to get into
>> the release?
>
> I want to get the deployer and plugin installer stuff working
> through gshell. Planning to look at it starting about now :-)
Okay, cool! Lemme know if you have any questions. I'm in Hawaii this
week, but I'm still working :-)
--jason
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
>> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/improvements
>>
>> - GShell
>
> Are there any other GShell-related bits which we want to get into
> the release?
I want to get the deployer and plugin installer stuff working through
gshell. Planning to look at it starting about now :-)
thanks
david jencks
>
> --jason
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
> Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/improvements
>
> - GShell
Are there any other GShell-related bits which we want to get into the
release?
--jason
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Agreed, we seem to have enough new stuff to call for a release.
Here is a list trying to consolidate these new functions/improvements
- GShell
- Console enhancements (dep plan generation, grouping/collapsing?)
- Monitoring
- Plugin infrastructure
- Pluggable console
- Security
- Configuration (config.xml, config-subst, etc)
- Deployment plans
- Tooling
- ...?
We will also need a whole new set of documentation to cover these in GMOxDOC21.
Anybody in desperate need for contributing docs for these features? ;-) it will be very much appreciated.
Cheers!
Hernan
Kevan Miller wrote:
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
> There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
> to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more solid
> platform for future enhancements, I think.
>
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
>
> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
> exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has already
> started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What additional
> capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up development
> activities in the next week or two?
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Shiva Kumar H R <sh...@gmail.com>.
On 11/1/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
> There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
> to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more
> solid platform for future enhancements, I think.
>
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
GERONIMO-3254 Admin Console Wizard to auto generate geronimo-web.xml is
almost complete and I can wrap up the remaining work-items within a week or
so. And if I get a week/two more I can also complete GERONIMO-3432 Admin
Console Wizard to auto generate openejb-jar.xml
Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
> exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
> development activities in the next week or two?
>
> --kevan
>
-- Shiva
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
Hi,
What I am doing does not rely on any clustering implementation. This
is how it will work:
1. User configures a cluster and a set of nodes belonging to it. You
can expect this type of GBeans:
<!-- Cluster confuguration -->
<gbean name="ClusterInfo"
class="org.apache.geronimo.clustering.config.BasicClusterInfo">
<attribute name="name">${PlanClusterName}</attribute>
<reference name="NodeInfos"></reference>
</gbean>
<!-- Node configuration -->
<gbean name="NodeInfo"
class="org.apache.geronimo.clustering.config.BasicNodeInfo">
<attribute name="name">${PlanNodeName}</attribute>
<xml-attribute name="jmxConnectorInfo">
<ns:javabean xmlns:ns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/
deployment/javabean-1.0"
class="org.apache.geronimo.clustering.config.BasicExtendedJMXConnectorIn
fo">
<ns:property name="username">system</ns:property>
<ns:property name="password">manager</ns:property>
<ns:property name="portocol">rmi</ns:property>
<ns:property name="host">localhost</ns:property>
<ns:property name="port">1099</ns:property>
<ns:property name="urlPath">/jndi/rmi://localhost:
1099/JMXConnector</ns:property>
</ns:javabean>
</xml-attribute>
</gbean>
<!-- Node configuration -->
<gbean name="SampleRemoteNodeInfo"
class="org.apache.geronimo.clustering.config.BasicNodeInfo">
<attribute name="name">SAMPLE_REMOTE_NODE</attribute>
<xml-attribute name="jmxConnectorInfo">
<ns:javabean xmlns:ns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/
deployment/javabean-1.0"
class="org.apache.geronimo.clustering.config.BasicExtendedJMXConnectorIn
fo">
<ns:property name="username">system</ns:property>
<ns:property name="password">manager</ns:property>
<ns:property name="portocol">rmi</ns:property>
<ns:property name="host">localhost</ns:property>
<ns:property name="port">1100</ns:property>
<ns:property name="urlPath">/jndi/rmi://localhost:
1100/JMXConnector</ns:property>
</ns:javabean>
</xml-attribute>
</gbean>
2. User configures a master repository for clustered artifacts:
<gbean name="MasterRepository"
class="org.apache.geronimo.system.repository.Maven2Repository">
<attribute name="root">master-repository/</attribute>
<reference name="ServerInfo">
<name>ServerInfo</name>
</reference>
</gbean>
<gbean name="MasterConfigurationStore"
class="org.apache.geronimo.clustering.deployment.MasterConfigurationStor
e">
<reference name="Repository">
<name>MasterRepository</name>
</reference>
<reference name="ClusterConfigurationStoreDelegate">
<name>ClusterConfigurationStoreDelegate</name>
</reference>
</gbean>
<gbean name="ClusterConfigurationStoreDelegate"
class="org.apache.geronimo.clustering.deployment.BasicClusterConfigurati
onStoreDelegate">
<reference name="ClusterInfo">
<name>ClusterInfo</name>
</reference>
</gbean>
Note that above configurations are done against a Geronimo server,
which may or not may be a cluster node. In other words, this
configuration could be done against a kind of administration server
having all the necessary deployers.
3. Users deploys its artifacts against the master repository. The
target server builds locally the corresponding ConfigurationData and
sends it to the configured nodes. More accurately, ConfigurationData
is "sent" through standard RPC over the JMX communication infra. The
content of the ConfigurationData, e.g. jar, war et cetera, is sent
via the remote upload servlet used by the deployer CLI. Note that if
all the servers have access to the master repository, then a user
will simply configure a no-op ClusterConfigurationStoreDelegate so
that the artifact upload step is skipped.
You can expect the same type of approach for the control, i.e. start,
stop et cetera, of cconfigurations.
I also intend to implement remote start and stop of servers by
talking to gshell instances. However, I will work on it after the
above features.
As you are also working on clustering stuff, could you please give us
some heads-up?
Thanks,
Gianny
On 06/11/2007, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Gianny,
>
> Since there are multiple clustering implementations going on at the
> same
> time, could you please keep us aprised of what you are doing so we
> don't
> clash?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> Gianny Damour wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I resumed this week-end some work on clustered deployment. I think
>> this
>> will be completed in about 2-3 weeks. This will allow distribute,
>> uninstall, start, stop, et cetera of configurations to a cluster as a
>> single logic operation. I am keen to get this change in for 2.1,
>> if it
>> does not delay 2.1.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gianny
>>
>> On 02/11/2007, at 4:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
>>> release.
>>>
>>> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
>>> infrastructure.
>>> There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be
>>> good
>>> to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more
>>> solid platform for future enhancements, I think.
>>>
>>> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
>>> missing a few other new functions.
>>>
>>> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
>>> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
>>> exposed.
>>>
>>> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
>>> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>>>
>>> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
>>> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
>>> development activities in the next week or two?
>>>
>>> --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Gianny,
Since there are multiple clustering implementations going on at the same
time, could you please keep us aprised of what you are doing so we don't
clash?
Thanks,
Jeff
Gianny Damour wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I resumed this week-end some work on clustered deployment. I think this
> will be completed in about 2-3 weeks. This will allow distribute,
> uninstall, start, stop, et cetera of configurations to a cluster as a
> single logic operation. I am keen to get this change in for 2.1, if it
> does not delay 2.1.
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
> On 02/11/2007, at 4:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
>>
>> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
>> There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
>> to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more
>> solid platform for future enhancements, I think.
>>
>> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
>> missing a few other new functions.
>>
>> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
>> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
>> exposed.
>>
>> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
>> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>>
>> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
>> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
>> development activities in the next week or two?
>>
>> --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
Hi,
I resumed this week-end some work on clustered deployment. I think
this will be completed in about 2-3 weeks. This will allow
distribute, uninstall, start, stop, et cetera of configurations to a
cluster as a single logic operation. I am keen to get this change in
for 2.1, if it does not delay 2.1.
Thanks,
Gianny
On 02/11/2007, at 4:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
> release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
> enhancements, I think.
>
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
>
> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin.
> I'd also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that
> could be exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
> development activities in the next week or two?
>
> --kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
I think the following two issues should be fixed for 2.1:
1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3502 - this prevents
a single assembly to have both cxf and axis2 installed (which we
supported in 2.0.x)
2) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3523 - can't do
certain actions through the console on jetty.
Jarek
On 11/1/07, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
> > I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
> >
> > There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
> > There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
> > to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more solid
> > platform for future enhancements, I think.
> >
> > There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> > missing a few other new functions.
> >
> > Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
> > also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
> > exposed.
> >
> > I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has already
> > started tugging on the TCK chain
> >
> > What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What additional
> > capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up development
> > activities in the next week or two?
>
> I think it would be good to get 2.1 out before the Holidays and I think
> that is reasonable. IMO we have enough function now to declare a release.
>
> Aside from getting tck passing and released version of current SNAPSHOT
> dependencies ... I think we ought to get config.xml updated. With the
> changes for the flexible server, config.xml is now being generated and
> isn't quite as user friendly as it once was. I don't know much about
> this area but I'll gladly help. There are also a few usability items
> that I'd like to see if I can get in ... but they are not critical.
>
> Joe
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Kevan Miller wrote:
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
> There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
> to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more solid
> platform for future enhancements, I think.
>
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
>
> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin. I'd
> also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that could be
> exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has already
> started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What additional
> capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up development
> activities in the next week or two?
I think it would be good to get 2.1 out before the Holidays and I think
that is reasonable. IMO we have enough function now to declare a release.
Aside from getting tck passing and released version of current SNAPSHOT
dependencies ... I think we ought to get config.xml updated. With the
changes for the flexible server, config.xml is now being generated and
isn't quite as user friendly as it once was. I don't know much about
this area but I'll gladly help. There are also a few usability items
that I'd like to see if I can get in ... but they are not critical.
Joe
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.1 Release
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 1, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1
> release.
>
> There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin
> infrastructure. There's also been the pluggable console
> enhancements. It would be good to get a release out, with these
> capabilities. They provide a more solid platform for future
> enhancements, I think.
There are a lot of improvements to the plugin infrastructure in
trunk. We have been using these new features internally for a while
now which much success, so I agree it would be a great idea to get a
new release into the hands of the user community for further testing
and feedback.
> There's also GShell and new monitoring capabilities. I'm probably
> missing a few other new functions.
I hope that monitoring can make it into 2.1. That stuff is really cool!
> Finally, IIUC, 2.1 would be able to support a Terracotta plugin.
> I'd also be very interested to hear what WADI capabilities that
> could be exposed.
>
> I'm willing to bang the release manager drum. I see that Joe has
> already started tugging on the TCK chain
>
> What do others think? How close are we to a 2.1 release? What
> additional capabilities and bug fixes are needed? Can we wrap up
> development activities in the next week or two?
I think you summed things up pretty well. I'm still working on a few
bug fixes but I think those can be wrapped up soon. Also I posted to
the TCK list earlier today about a JSF issue that will need to be
resolved.
Best wishes,
Paul