You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> on 2006/12/04 16:54:48 UTC
Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our
Geronimo 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete this
monsterous effort. While sifting through the scorecard and thinking
about all the different things that need to be addressed it became a
bit overwhelming. As everyone knows many different projects are
working on their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some are available
and others are works in progress (as is ours). It seems that from
user perspective people are really interested in the Java EE and have
been asking for several months about where we are. At this point it
would be nice to give them an idea of what we're thinking about.
I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted to
make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats that
this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's time
and contribution.
With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic
representations that represent the Java EE specifications that need
to be completed from a high level.
I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring to
the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related
functionality to get in the game but innovations beyond the
specification were necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't
capture those here but I'll work on pulling that together as well.
Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
provide your thoughts on how were doing.
If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
sometime in the next week and a half.
What do y'all think?
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our
> Geronimo 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete this
> monsterous effort. While sifting through the scorecard and thinking
> about all the different things that need to be addressed it became a
> bit overwhelming. As everyone knows many different projects are
> working on their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some are available
> and others are works in progress (as is ours). It seems that from user
> perspective people are really interested in the Java EE and have been
> asking for several months about where we are. At this point it would
> be nice to give them an idea of what we're thinking about.
>
> I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted to
> make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats that
> this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's time and
> contribution.
>
> With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic representations
> that represent the Java EE specifications that need to be completed
> from a high level.
>
> I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring to
> the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related functionality
> to get in the game but innovations beyond the specification were
> necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't capture those here but I'll
> work on pulling that together as well.
>
> Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
> provide your thoughts on how were doing.
>
> If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> sometime in the next week and a half.
>
> What do y'all think?
I think it is very ambitious and high risk (esp. the Dec. 22
beta/milestone) ... but I also agree that it's critical for us to
support Java EE 5 as quickly as possible.
"Table stakes" is a good analogy. We need to support Java EE 5 before
we can even be considered in most shops doing new development. These
target dates and driver content will put us in good position to deliver
along with some and ahead of other choices. Achieving them will ensure
that we continue to build on the momentum Geronimo has already gained.
These goals also help to unify the community and provide important
direction to users that we are seriously moving toward Java EE 5.
So I think it's good in several ways .... but I better stop typing and
get busy! ;-)
Joe
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
This sounds reasonable and achievable to me. A milestone JEE 5
driver would be a great way to close out the year and get some
momentum built up for next.
I started to work on G-1526 last week and will hopefully like to get
this in for the milestone. I've got the server building with using
the DeployableModule interface as a replacement for JarFile, and now
I'm trying to tweak the interface and try to test out the Eclipse
support for it. If it works I'd like to post the patch for review
and get it in for M1.
On Dec 4, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our
> Geronimo 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete
> this monsterous effort. While sifting through the scorecard and
> thinking about all the different things that need to be addressed
> it became a bit overwhelming. As everyone knows many different
> projects are working on their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some
> are available and others are works in progress (as is ours). It
> seems that from user perspective people are really interested in
> the Java EE and have been asking for several months about where we
> are. At this point it would be nice to give them an idea of what
> we're thinking about.
>
> I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted
> to make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats
> that this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's
> time and contribution.
>
> With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic
> representations that represent the Java EE specifications that need
> to be completed from a high level.
>
> I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring
> to the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related
> functionality to get in the game but innovations beyond the
> specification were necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't
> capture those here but I'll work on pulling that together as well.
>
> Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
> provide your thoughts on how were doing.
>
> If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> sometime in the next week and a half.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
-sachin
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
+1.
Oh yeah, I agree. Let's give it a shot with all the best that we have.
Cheers
Prasad
On 12/5/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt, JEE5 is critical to the widespread adoption of Geronimo. We
> can and should accomplish these milestones.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On 12/4/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> > While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our
> > Geronimo 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete this
> > monsterous effort. While sifting through the scorecard and thinking
> > about all the different things that need to be addressed it became a
> > bit overwhelming. As everyone knows many different projects are
> > working on their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some are available
> > and others are works in progress (as is ours). It seems that from
> > user perspective people are really interested in the Java EE and have
> > been asking for several months about where we are. At this point it
> > would be nice to give them an idea of what we're thinking about.
> >
> > I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted to
> > make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats that
> > this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's time
> > and contribution.
> >
> > With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic
> > representations that represent the Java EE specifications that need
> > to be completed from a high level.
> >
> > I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring to
> > the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related
> > functionality to get in the game but innovations beyond the
> > specification were necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't
> > capture those here but I'll work on pulling that together as well.
> >
> > Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
> > provide your thoughts on how were doing.
> >
> > If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> > sometime in the next week and a half.
> >
> > What do y'all think?
> >
> > Matt Hogstrom
> > matt@hogstrom.org
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
Matt, JEE5 is critical to the widespread adoption of Geronimo. We
can and should accomplish these milestones.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 12/4/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our
> Geronimo 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete this
> monsterous effort. While sifting through the scorecard and thinking
> about all the different things that need to be addressed it became a
> bit overwhelming. As everyone knows many different projects are
> working on their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some are available
> and others are works in progress (as is ours). It seems that from
> user perspective people are really interested in the Java EE and have
> been asking for several months about where we are. At this point it
> would be nice to give them an idea of what we're thinking about.
>
> I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted to
> make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats that
> this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's time
> and contribution.
>
> With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic
> representations that represent the Java EE specifications that need
> to be completed from a high level.
>
> I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring to
> the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related
> functionality to get in the game but innovations beyond the
> specification were necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't
> capture those here but I'll work on pulling that together as well.
>
> Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
> provide your thoughts on how were doing.
>
> If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> sometime in the next week and a half.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com>.
Hi Matt, I agree as well. I'll have the JSF work completed for M1 (to the extent that MyFaces 1.2 is
complete) plus the JSR-88 deployment changes for annotations ready for M2.
Thanks much
Tim
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our Geronimo
> 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete this monsterous
> effort. While sifting through the scorecard and thinking about all the
> different things that need to be addressed it became a bit
> overwhelming. As everyone knows many different projects are working on
> their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some are available and others are
> works in progress (as is ours). It seems that from user perspective
> people are really interested in the Java EE and have been asking for
> several months about where we are. At this point it would be nice to
> give them an idea of what we're thinking about.
>
> I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted to
> make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats that
> this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's time and
> contribution.
>
> With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic representations
> that represent the Java EE specifications that need to be completed from
> a high level.
>
> I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring to
> the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related functionality
> to get in the game but innovations beyond the specification were
> necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't capture those here but I'll
> work on pulling that together as well.
>
> Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
> provide your thoughts on how were doing.
>
> If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> sometime in the next week and a half.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
IMO the M<N> notation here is really confusing for a post-1.0 release.
I also don't really get the Dec 22 thing at all... If we are lucky
we will get 1.2 out by then.
But, I'm not trying to knock any of this ambition... just a comment.
--jason
On Dec 4, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our
> Geronimo 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete
> this monsterous effort. While sifting through the scorecard and
> thinking about all the different things that need to be addressed
> it became a bit overwhelming. As everyone knows many different
> projects are working on their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some
> are available and others are works in progress (as is ours). It
> seems that from user perspective people are really interested in
> the Java EE and have been asking for several months about where we
> are. At this point it would be nice to give them an idea of what
> we're thinking about.
>
> I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted
> to make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats
> that this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's
> time and contribution.
>
> With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic
> representations that represent the Java EE specifications that need
> to be completed from a high level.
>
> I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring
> to the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related
> functionality to get in the game but innovations beyond the
> specification were necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't
> capture those here but I'll work on pulling that together as well.
>
> Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
> provide your thoughts on how were doing.
>
> If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> sometime in the next week and a half.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
I saw the charts and the timeline looks a bit aggressive but feasible. I personally work better if I know "when" and "what" we are shooting for; personally, I like the challenge.
It would be great if we manage to release a JEE5 milestone before the end of the year, it will give G a big push in the right direction -> Release Early, Release Often with the features the users want.
Are you planning to put a breakdown roadmap on the wiki?
Cheers!
Hernan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> While ripping out drywall this weekend I was thinking about our Geronimo
> 2.0 and all the work that needs to get done to complete this monsterous
> effort. While sifting through the scorecard and thinking about all the
> different things that need to be addressed it became a bit
> overwhelming. As everyone knows many different projects are working on
> their implementations of Java EE 5.0. Some are available and others are
> works in progress (as is ours). It seems that from user perspective
> people are really interested in the Java EE and have been asking for
> several months about where we are. At this point it would be nice to
> give them an idea of what we're thinking about.
>
> I had previously put out a set of milestones and dates. I wanted to
> make it a little more formal and of course with all the caveats that
> this is open source and our timetables are subject to people's time and
> contribution.
>
> With that, here is an updated timeline and some graphic representations
> that represent the Java EE specifications that need to be completed from
> a high level.
>
> I think it was Dain that used the term table stakes when referring to
> the specification. Meaning that we need the spec related functionality
> to get in the game but innovations beyond the specification were
> necessary to make a bigger splash. I don't capture those here but I'll
> work on pulling that together as well.
>
> Take a look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo2.0/ and
> provide your thoughts on how were doing.
>
> If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> sometime in the next week and a half.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Dec 5, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Deploying 2.5 servlets
>> While tc6 deploys and runs 2.4 WARs ok I haven't tried deploying a
>> 2.5
>> WAR yet. All the webapps in the tc6 dist use 2.4 so I really hope
>> I'm not the first one trying this :-S I googled up some JEE5 servlet
>> samples but they are tightly coupled with other new JEE5 stuff like
>> JPA, EJB 3.0, etc, so I need something simpler. I'll probably end up
>> adding some 2.5 content to our unit test cases and cross my fingers.
>> Worst case scenario is that for M1 we'll have a 2.5 servlet engine
>> that you can only deploy <=2.4. servlets to.
>>
>
> I'm looking at getting DayTrader 2.0-SNAPSHOT running now.
I'm seeing some problem with the PersistenceUnitRefBuilder
misinterpreting the persistence-unit-ref for jpa. I'll be looking
into it later today (I hope).
I also see a really long stack trace when shutting down the jetty and
jetty6 servers, hope to get to that one too.
thanks
david jencks
> Perhaps I can add a new WAR with some 2.5 and JSP 2.1 content.
> Interested?
>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 12/5/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I'm looking at getting DayTrader 2.0-SNAPSHOT running now. Perhaps I
> can add a new WAR with some 2.5 and JSP 2.1 content. Interested?
>
that would be great.
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On Dec 5, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Deploying 2.5 servlets
> While tc6 deploys and runs 2.4 WARs ok I haven't tried deploying a 2.5
> WAR yet. All the webapps in the tc6 dist use 2.4 so I really hope
> I'm not the first one trying this :-S I googled up some JEE5 servlet
> samples but they are tightly coupled with other new JEE5 stuff like
> JPA, EJB 3.0, etc, so I need something simpler. I'll probably end up
> adding some 2.5 content to our unit test cases and cross my fingers.
> Worst case scenario is that for M1 we'll have a 2.5 servlet engine
> that you can only deploy <=2.4. servlets to.
>
I'm looking at getting DayTrader 2.0-SNAPSHOT running now. Perhaps I
can add a new WAR with some 2.5 and JSP 2.1 content. Interested?
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
Paul,
Nice work.. I just tried geronimo-tomcat-jee5 server. The shutdown
exception is same as the one from jetty assembly.
Thanks
Anita
--- Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/5/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul, Tomcat integration might have the most work to do for M1.
> How
> > > is that looking?
> >
> > I have the JSP 2.1 and EL 1.0 specs checked in and published to the
> > snapshot repo, reversioned to 1.0-SNAPSHOT this morning per Jason's
> > advice. The annotation 1.0 and servlet 2.5 specs were already
> > available thanks to Joe and Greg. In my local build I have tc6
> > running the web console OK in a new tomcat-jee5 assembly and the
> > default app in the tomcat-minimal assembly. Deploying a simple 2.4
> > WAR from the CLI works. I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to
> > commit this first stage of tomcat integration this week.
>
> I just committed stage 2 of the tc6 update. As a reminder here's the
> wiki page for the overall game plan with progress indicated:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/tomcat-v6-game-plan.html
>
> If anyone sees problems then please let me know.
>
> > Current issues:
> >
> > Deploying 2.5 servlets
> > While tc6 deploys and runs 2.4 WARs ok I haven't tried deploying a
> 2.5
> > WAR yet. All the webapps in the tc6 dist use 2.4 so I really hope
> > I'm not the first one trying this :-S I googled up some JEE5
> servlet
> > samples but they are tightly coupled with other new JEE5 stuff like
> > JPA, EJB 3.0, etc, so I need something simpler. I'll probably end
> up
> > adding some 2.5 content to our unit test cases and cross my
> fingers.
> > Worst case scenario is that for M1 we'll have a 2.5 servlet engine
> > that you can only deploy <=2.4. servlets to.
>
> Turns out this works OK. I added a testcase to geronimo-tomcat that
> uses a 2.5 web.xml.
>
> > Failing unit test-
> > A unit tests in geronimo-tomcat fails intermittently apparently due
> to
> > a change in how tc6 handles connections. Still investigating if
> its a
> > bug in geronimo, tomcat or the unit test. For the initial checkin
> I
> > may need to disable the unit test.
>
> I disabled the unit test and am investigating whether the problem is
> in geronimo, the test case, or in tomcat.
>
> > Noise factor-
> > Shutdown of the JEE5 assemblies generates a huge stack trace.
> Looks
> > like tranql/derby is the culpirt and not tomcat but I'm not 100%
> sure.
> > I'll probably have to commit while the stack trace still appears
> so
> > others can have a look.
>
> Others were seeing this stack trace before I committed and it's in
> the
> jetty assembly as well so apparently not due to tc6.
>
> > Also I need to figure out how to avoid
> > logging tomcat's INFO messages to the command window. Its really
> > noisy right now.
>
> Tomcat is still logging INFO messages in the command window and I
> will
> fix that asap. I needed to go ahead and check in as-is so others
> with
> prereqs on tc6 can proceed with their work (plus I was going nuts
> keeping up with in trunk :-)
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Hey Paul,
I just gave it a quick look. Things went pretty smoothly. Build fine,
ran fine, and the console seemed to work fine. As you already
mentioned there are a lot of info messages and the stacktraces on
terminating the server but these are not unique to tomcat at the moment.
The one new thing I noticed was that when I deployed a simple web
application (snoop without a plan) via the web console things looked
like they went well but I couldn't connect to the application. The URL
for the web app looked strange ("//snoop" rather than just "/snoop").
Regards,
Joe
Paul McMahan wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Paul, Tomcat integration might have the most work to do for M1. How
>> > is that looking?
>>
>> I have the JSP 2.1 and EL 1.0 specs checked in and published to the
>> snapshot repo, reversioned to 1.0-SNAPSHOT this morning per Jason's
>> advice. The annotation 1.0 and servlet 2.5 specs were already
>> available thanks to Joe and Greg. In my local build I have tc6
>> running the web console OK in a new tomcat-jee5 assembly and the
>> default app in the tomcat-minimal assembly. Deploying a simple 2.4
>> WAR from the CLI works. I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to
>> commit this first stage of tomcat integration this week.
>
>
> I just committed stage 2 of the tc6 update. As a reminder here's the
> wiki page for the overall game plan with progress indicated:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/tomcat-v6-game-plan.html
>
> If anyone sees problems then please let me know.
>
>> Current issues:
>>
>> Deploying 2.5 servlets
>> While tc6 deploys and runs 2.4 WARs ok I haven't tried deploying a 2.5
>> WAR yet. All the webapps in the tc6 dist use 2.4 so I really hope
>> I'm not the first one trying this :-S I googled up some JEE5 servlet
>> samples but they are tightly coupled with other new JEE5 stuff like
>> JPA, EJB 3.0, etc, so I need something simpler. I'll probably end up
>> adding some 2.5 content to our unit test cases and cross my fingers.
>> Worst case scenario is that for M1 we'll have a 2.5 servlet engine
>> that you can only deploy <=2.4. servlets to.
>
>
> Turns out this works OK. I added a testcase to geronimo-tomcat that
> uses a 2.5 web.xml.
>
>> Failing unit test-
>> A unit tests in geronimo-tomcat fails intermittently apparently due to
>> a change in how tc6 handles connections. Still investigating if its a
>> bug in geronimo, tomcat or the unit test. For the initial checkin I
>> may need to disable the unit test.
>
>
> I disabled the unit test and am investigating whether the problem is
> in geronimo, the test case, or in tomcat.
>
>> Noise factor-
>> Shutdown of the JEE5 assemblies generates a huge stack trace. Looks
>> like tranql/derby is the culpirt and not tomcat but I'm not 100% sure.
>> I'll probably have to commit while the stack trace still appears so
>> others can have a look.
>
>
> Others were seeing this stack trace before I committed and it's in the
> jetty assembly as well so apparently not due to tc6.
>
>> Also I need to figure out how to avoid
>> logging tomcat's INFO messages to the command window. Its really
>> noisy right now.
>
>
> Tomcat is still logging INFO messages in the command window and I will
> fix that asap. I needed to go ahead and check in as-is so others with
> prereqs on tc6 can proceed with their work (plus I was going nuts
> keeping up with in trunk :-)
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
>
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 12/5/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Paul, Tomcat integration might have the most work to do for M1. How
> > is that looking?
>
> I have the JSP 2.1 and EL 1.0 specs checked in and published to the
> snapshot repo, reversioned to 1.0-SNAPSHOT this morning per Jason's
> advice. The annotation 1.0 and servlet 2.5 specs were already
> available thanks to Joe and Greg. In my local build I have tc6
> running the web console OK in a new tomcat-jee5 assembly and the
> default app in the tomcat-minimal assembly. Deploying a simple 2.4
> WAR from the CLI works. I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to
> commit this first stage of tomcat integration this week.
I just committed stage 2 of the tc6 update. As a reminder here's the
wiki page for the overall game plan with progress indicated:
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/tomcat-v6-game-plan.html
If anyone sees problems then please let me know.
> Current issues:
>
> Deploying 2.5 servlets
> While tc6 deploys and runs 2.4 WARs ok I haven't tried deploying a 2.5
> WAR yet. All the webapps in the tc6 dist use 2.4 so I really hope
> I'm not the first one trying this :-S I googled up some JEE5 servlet
> samples but they are tightly coupled with other new JEE5 stuff like
> JPA, EJB 3.0, etc, so I need something simpler. I'll probably end up
> adding some 2.5 content to our unit test cases and cross my fingers.
> Worst case scenario is that for M1 we'll have a 2.5 servlet engine
> that you can only deploy <=2.4. servlets to.
Turns out this works OK. I added a testcase to geronimo-tomcat that
uses a 2.5 web.xml.
> Failing unit test-
> A unit tests in geronimo-tomcat fails intermittently apparently due to
> a change in how tc6 handles connections. Still investigating if its a
> bug in geronimo, tomcat or the unit test. For the initial checkin I
> may need to disable the unit test.
I disabled the unit test and am investigating whether the problem is
in geronimo, the test case, or in tomcat.
> Noise factor-
> Shutdown of the JEE5 assemblies generates a huge stack trace. Looks
> like tranql/derby is the culpirt and not tomcat but I'm not 100% sure.
> I'll probably have to commit while the stack trace still appears so
> others can have a look.
Others were seeing this stack trace before I committed and it's in the
jetty assembly as well so apparently not due to tc6.
> Also I need to figure out how to avoid
> logging tomcat's INFO messages to the command window. Its really
> noisy right now.
Tomcat is still logging INFO messages in the command window and I will
fix that asap. I needed to go ahead and check in as-is so others with
prereqs on tc6 can proceed with their work (plus I was going nuts
keeping up with in trunk :-)
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Paul McMahan wrote:
> Noise factor-
> Shutdown of the JEE5 assemblies generates a huge stack trace. Looks
> like tranql/derby is the culpirt and not tomcat but I'm not 100% sure.
> I'll probably have to commit while the stack trace still appears so
> others can have a look. Also I need to figure out how to avoid
> logging tomcat's INFO messages to the command window. Its really
> noisy right now.
We get what I assume are similar errors shutting down Jetty 6. I'm not
sure if they are the same that you are seeing or not ... but with Jetty
it looks like we're in an infinite loop getting "connectionErrorOccured
with null SQL Exception" continually until we hit a StackOverflowError.
following by a full NPEs trying to deal with that. If that's what
you're seeing as well then it probably isn't Tomcat.
Joe
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 12/5/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul, Tomcat integration might have the most work to do for M1. How
> is that looking?
I have the JSP 2.1 and EL 1.0 specs checked in and published to the
snapshot repo, reversioned to 1.0-SNAPSHOT this morning per Jason's
advice. The annotation 1.0 and servlet 2.5 specs were already
available thanks to Joe and Greg. In my local build I have tc6
running the web console OK in a new tomcat-jee5 assembly and the
default app in the tomcat-minimal assembly. Deploying a simple 2.4
WAR from the CLI works. I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to
commit this first stage of tomcat integration this week.
Current issues:
Deploying 2.5 servlets
While tc6 deploys and runs 2.4 WARs ok I haven't tried deploying a 2.5
WAR yet. All the webapps in the tc6 dist use 2.4 so I really hope
I'm not the first one trying this :-S I googled up some JEE5 servlet
samples but they are tightly coupled with other new JEE5 stuff like
JPA, EJB 3.0, etc, so I need something simpler. I'll probably end up
adding some 2.5 content to our unit test cases and cross my fingers.
Worst case scenario is that for M1 we'll have a 2.5 servlet engine
that you can only deploy <=2.4. servlets to.
Failing unit test-
A unit tests in geronimo-tomcat fails intermittently apparently due to
a change in how tc6 handles connections. Still investigating if its a
bug in geronimo, tomcat or the unit test. For the initial checkin I
may need to disable the unit test.
Noise factor-
Shutdown of the JEE5 assemblies generates a huge stack trace. Looks
like tranql/derby is the culpirt and not tomcat but I'm not 100% sure.
I'll probably have to commit while the stack trace still appears so
others can have a look. Also I need to figure out how to avoid
logging tomcat's INFO messages to the command window. Its really
noisy right now.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: Geronimo 2.0 Milestone's and how were doing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 4, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> If we are going to make a Dec 22 Beta 1 then we would have to cut
> sometime in the next week and a half.
Cool.
I've only merged license/notice information from branches/1.2 onto
trunk. I haven't reviewed the trunk-unique dependencies. I'll get
that done in time for the beta...
Paul, Tomcat integration might have the most work to do for M1. How
is that looking?
Would be good to create proposed M1 release notes. This might drive
some good discussion to insure we feel good about the proposal...
--kevan