Geronimo M4

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Geronimo M4

Wolf Benz
Hi,

Browsing through the Geronimo Website, I came across a page "Roadmap"  
but this was with a perspective to the past, not the future...
So I was wondering, as M3's been ... half a year now, whether perhaps  
M4 would come out shortly, and if so, when.
& Whether it would be a good idea to add a future oriented roadmap in  
the site as well. Combined with features, this would (amongst others)  
provide developers with a means to -justified- choose & "lobby" for  
Geronimo beforehand. (and with an idea to when to join the party)

I understand people are lobbying to be certified and are reluctant to  
release smth else beforehand, but for us, developers, it's equally  
important to get our hands dirty with recent stuff, to be able to  
play with the goods so that, whenever it indeed becomes fully  
compliant, we can use it right away in mature and experienced fashion.
Releasing an M4 asap would allow us to invest in learning curve *now*.
This is a different matter than being fully compliant, which will  
give us an official means to justify the choice for G to our hierarchy.
Remember JBoss: it was not certified for a long time but I don't  
remember devs not using it for this reason. (& of course afterwards  
it was easier to justify)

Best Regards,
Philippe Lamote
Belgium


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

ammulder
        We do have nightly releases that can be downloaded from the web
site.  However, I agree that a M4 would be nice.  I'd like to release
documentation targeting M4, and I'm not really keen on claiming it's valid
for "HEAD on 5/25"...

        I think one of the main things that needs to be done for this is
to prepare the release notes.  To do that, we need to review all the
issues in JIRA that have been closed since M3 or that are still open.

        David J, have the build script revisions satisfied your dependency
concerns so you're no longer opposed to releasing an M4?

        We also need some testing of a proposed M4 build.  Can someone
with the TCK set up plan to run the TCK against the proposed M4 build and
make sure it doesn't do any worse than the otherwise current results?  Or
is that harder than I realise?  (I'd be willing to do this myself but I'd
need some help getting the TCK set up)

Thanks,
        Aaron

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Philippe Lamote wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Browsing through the Geronimo Website, I came across a page "Roadmap"  
> but this was with a perspective to the past, not the future...
> So I was wondering, as M3's been ... half a year now, whether perhaps  
> M4 would come out shortly, and if so, when.
> & Whether it would be a good idea to add a future oriented roadmap in  
> the site as well. Combined with features, this would (amongst others)  
> provide developers with a means to -justified- choose & "lobby" for  
> Geronimo beforehand. (and with an idea to when to join the party)
>
> I understand people are lobbying to be certified and are reluctant to  
> release smth else beforehand, but for us, developers, it's equally  
> important to get our hands dirty with recent stuff, to be able to  
> play with the goods so that, whenever it indeed becomes fully  
> compliant, we can use it right away in mature and experienced fashion.
> Releasing an M4 asap would allow us to invest in learning curve *now*.
> This is a different matter than being fully compliant, which will  
> give us an official means to justify the choice for G to our hierarchy.
> Remember JBoss: it was not certified for a long time but I don't  
> remember devs not using it for this reason. (& of course afterwards  
> it was easier to justify)
>
> Best Regards,
> Philippe Lamote
> Belgium
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

jgenender
In reply to this post by Wolf Benz
Hi Philippe,

We are currently working towards an official release, so thanks for
inquiring.  However, in the mean time, you are welcome to download the
source and build a latest version for youself.  The source tree will
contain the closest-to-M4 version and you should be able to get started
using Geronimo with the latest and greatest code.  If you have problems
building, we can help you out.

See here for instructions to get you started:

http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Building

Jeff

Philippe Lamote wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Browsing through the Geronimo Website, I came across a page "Roadmap"  
> but this was with a perspective to the past, not the future...
> So I was wondering, as M3's been ... half a year now, whether perhaps  
> M4 would come out shortly, and if so, when.
> & Whether it would be a good idea to add a future oriented roadmap in  
> the site as well. Combined with features, this would (amongst others)  
> provide developers with a means to -justified- choose & "lobby" for  
> Geronimo beforehand. (and with an idea to when to join the party)
>
> I understand people are lobbying to be certified and are reluctant to  
> release smth else beforehand, but for us, developers, it's equally  
> important to get our hands dirty with recent stuff, to be able to  play
> with the goods so that, whenever it indeed becomes fully  compliant, we
> can use it right away in mature and experienced fashion.
> Releasing an M4 asap would allow us to invest in learning curve *now*.
> This is a different matter than being fully compliant, which will  give
> us an official means to justify the choice for G to our hierarchy.
> Remember JBoss: it was not certified for a long time but I don't  
> remember devs not using it for this reason. (& of course afterwards  it
> was easier to justify)
>
> Best Regards,
> Philippe Lamote
> Belgium
>

--
Jeff Genender
http://geronimo.apache.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

Stefan Arentz-3

On May 26, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> Hi Philippe,
>
> We are currently working towards an official release, so thanks for  
> inquiring.  However, in the mean time, you are welcome to download  
> the source and build a latest version for youself.  The source tree  
> will contain the closest-to-M4 version and you should be able to  
> get started using Geronimo with the latest and greatest code.

Would it make sense to split the release into two and have a  
'Geronimo Core (or Kernel)' and 'Geronimo J2EE' part? I would really  
like to start doing some more serious work with Geronimo but I have  
absolutely no interest in a complete J2EE environment. I'm sure there  
are many people in the same situation.

It could also make sense from a PR kind of view; right now it looks  
like the project is stalled ... it has been a long time since an  
official release was made. With a 'Geronimo Core' package that has a  
v1.0.x version number that could change. Perception is reality :-)

  S.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

Dmitriy Kopylenko
+1 ... with the separate standalone (reusable) distribution units e.g.
geronimo-tx.jar, geronimo-jca.jar (the ones I'm interested in) ;-)

Regards,
Dmitriy.


Stefan Arentz wrote:

>
> On May 26, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> We are currently working towards an official release, so thanks for  
>> inquiring.  However, in the mean time, you are welcome to download  
>> the source and build a latest version for youself.  The source tree  
>> will contain the closest-to-M4 version and you should be able to  get
>> started using Geronimo with the latest and greatest code.
>
>
> Would it make sense to split the release into two and have a  
> 'Geronimo Core (or Kernel)' and 'Geronimo J2EE' part? I would really  
> like to start doing some more serious work with Geronimo but I have  
> absolutely no interest in a complete J2EE environment. I'm sure there  
> are many people in the same situation.
>
> It could also make sense from a PR kind of view; right now it looks  
> like the project is stalled ... it has been a long time since an  
> official release was made. With a 'Geronimo Core' package that has a  
> v1.0.x version number that could change. Perception is reality :-)
>
>  S.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

jgenender
In reply to this post by Stefan Arentz-3
Great comments.  We are trying to change this perception and will
shortly begin showing we have far from stalled.

Lets get some more discussion about splitting up the components and get
some more feedback in this area...

I agree to have a full J2EE stack release *and* a stripped down
core-only version is a great idea.  Lets get some more input on this
subject..


Stefan Arentz wrote:

>
> On May 26, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> We are currently working towards an official release, so thanks for  
>> inquiring.  However, in the mean time, you are welcome to download  
>> the source and build a latest version for youself.  The source tree  
>> will contain the closest-to-M4 version and you should be able to  get
>> started using Geronimo with the latest and greatest code.
>
>
> Would it make sense to split the release into two and have a  'Geronimo
> Core (or Kernel)' and 'Geronimo J2EE' part? I would really  like to
> start doing some more serious work with Geronimo but I have  absolutely
> no interest in a complete J2EE environment. I'm sure there  are many
> people in the same situation.
>
> It could also make sense from a PR kind of view; right now it looks  
> like the project is stalled ... it has been a long time since an  
> official release was made. With a 'Geronimo Core' package that has a  
> v1.0.x version number that could change. Perception is reality :-)
>
>  S.

--
Jeff Genender
http://geronimo.apache.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

David Blevins
In reply to this post by Dmitriy Kopylenko
That would be great.  But a lot of our components are inseparable at the moment.  Build-your-own-server is certainly a goal to shoot for, but we'd need a lot of help getting there.

-David

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 02:53:16PM -0400, Dmitriy Kopylenko wrote:

> +1 ... with the separate standalone (reusable) distribution units e.g.
> geronimo-tx.jar, geronimo-jca.jar (the ones I'm interested in) ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Dmitriy.
>
>
> Stefan Arentz wrote:
>
> >
> >On May 26, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Philippe,
> >>
> >>We are currently working towards an official release, so thanks for  
> >>inquiring.  However, in the mean time, you are welcome to download  
> >>the source and build a latest version for youself.  The source tree  
> >>will contain the closest-to-M4 version and you should be able to  get
> >>started using Geronimo with the latest and greatest code.
> >
> >
> >Would it make sense to split the release into two and have a  
> >'Geronimo Core (or Kernel)' and 'Geronimo J2EE' part? I would really  
> >like to start doing some more serious work with Geronimo but I have  
> >absolutely no interest in a complete J2EE environment. I'm sure there  
> >are many people in the same situation.
> >
> >It could also make sense from a PR kind of view; right now it looks  
> >like the project is stalled ... it has been a long time since an  
> >official release was made. With a 'Geronimo Core' package that has a  
> >v1.0.x version number that could change. Perception is reality :-)
> >
> > S.
> >
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

Bruce Snyder
In reply to this post by jgenender
On 5/26/05, Jeff Genender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Great comments.  We are trying to change this perception and will
> shortly begin showing we have far from stalled.
>
> Lets get some more discussion about splitting up the components and get
> some more feedback in this area...
>
> I agree to have a full J2EE stack release *and* a stripped down
> core-only version is a great idea.  Lets get some more input on this
> subject..

+1 for this idea. But that means that we need to get nightly builds to
deliver packages/components in this manner.

So far, I've been unable to get a nightly build running using the
publish_build.sh script. There always seems to be some reason that it
fails. Right now I'm battling an error reading the following file
during the assemble goal:

~/.maven/cache/maven-multiproject-plugin-1.3.1/plugin.jelly

I've completely ditched the entire .maven dir and the error still occurs.

Any ideas are much appreciated.

Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/

Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

David Blevins
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 01:32:18PM -0600, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> So far, I've been unable to get a nightly build running using the
> publish_build.sh script. There always seems to be some reason that it
> fails. Right now I'm battling an error reading the following file
> during the assemble goal:
>
> ~/.maven/cache/maven-multiproject-plugin-1.3.1/plugin.jelly
>

Maven points the finger there anytime the build fails for whatever reason.  Forget the script for a moment and just try and get a regular build going in your home dir and post the errors.  Getting Geronimo to build for the first time on a machine can be tricky.

-David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

Stefan Arentz-3
In reply to this post by David Blevins

On May 26, 2005, at 9:26 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> That would be great.  But a lot of our components are inseparable  
> at the moment.  Build-your-own-server is certainly a goal to shoot  
> for, but we'd need a lot of help getting there.

What kind of help?

  S.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

Fredrik Westermarck
In reply to this post by ammulder
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> We do have nightly releases that can be downloaded from the web
> site.  However, I agree that a M4 would be nice.  I'd like to release
> documentation targeting M4, and I'm not really keen on claiming it's valid
> for "HEAD on 5/25"...

An alterate solution would be to only tag milestones in the SVN and not
publish any binarys.

This would make it possible for users to checkout and build a version on
their own that is somewhat more stable than one might get if the only
option is to check out head. It would also decrease the overhead that is
required when making a binary release.

Regards,
Fredrik Westermarck

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

ammulder
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
        What's the difference between buildall.sh and publish_build.sh?  
From talking to David J I thought buildall.sh was the better one to use.

Aaron

On Thu, 26 May 2005, Bruce Snyder wrote:

> On 5/26/05, Jeff Genender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Great comments.  We are trying to change this perception and will
> > shortly begin showing we have far from stalled.
> >
> > Lets get some more discussion about splitting up the components and get
> > some more feedback in this area...
> >
> > I agree to have a full J2EE stack release *and* a stripped down
> > core-only version is a great idea.  Lets get some more input on this
> > subject..
>
> +1 for this idea. But that means that we need to get nightly builds to
> deliver packages/components in this manner.
>
> So far, I've been unable to get a nightly build running using the
> publish_build.sh script. There always seems to be some reason that it
> fails. Right now I'm battling an error reading the following file
> during the assemble goal:
>
> ~/.maven/cache/maven-multiproject-plugin-1.3.1/plugin.jelly
>
> I've completely ditched the entire .maven dir and the error still occurs.
>
> Any ideas are much appreciated.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
>
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

David Blevins
In reply to this post by Stefan Arentz-3
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:16:44PM +0200, Stefan Arentz wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2005, at 9:26 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> >That would be great.  But a lot of our components are inseparable  
> >at the moment.  Build-your-own-server is certainly a goal to shoot  
> >for, but we'd need a lot of help getting there.
>
> What kind of help?
>

Sorry for the delayed response.   The kind of help I'm talking about is that we'd need several people actually trying to pull components apart to create a server with just what they want and working with us on the issues that pop up.  You'd also have to be willing to play code-surgeon and separate components that are very tightly coupled.

Also, feel free to ask people on the list for help if you like.  You don't need to be a committer to think of new ideas.  You don't need to be a committer to work on them.  You don't need to be a committer to ask for help in implementing them.  It's open source, this is your project too.

Ideally, we'd have a few pockets of people all innovating in different things and new people coming into the project would see that such a thing is ok and encouraged.  IMO, it's a good thing to make people sweat it out as a non-committer for a while as they are very good examples for other people who also want to get involved.  We need more of that.

-David
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geronimo M4

David Blevins
In reply to this post by ammulder
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 05:56:32PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I think one of the main things that needs to be done for this is
> to prepare the release notes.  To do that, we need to review all the
> issues in JIRA that have been closed since M3 or that are still open.

You did excellent Jira work and release notes for M3--best yet.  You willing to do that again?  I think it would be good to get that started now as it will take a little longer due to cruft build-up since our last release.

> We also need some testing of a proposed M4 build.  Can someone
> with the TCK set up plan to run the TCK against the proposed M4 build and
> make sure it doesn't do any worse than the otherwise current results?  Or
> is that harder than I realise?  (I'd be willing to do this myself but I'd
> need some help getting the TCK set up)

Obviously, we can coordinate this more in the tck list, but I think we can divide and conquer on this front.

-David