Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

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

Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

Jeremy Boynes
This discussion has gone on long enough - please can we put it on hold
until after certification.

For those discussing dualing implementations - PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON
HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION.

For those planning on changing the kernel to use XML -
<bold><flashing><underscore>
   PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION
</underscore></flashing></bold>

--
Jeremy

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

Dain Sundstrom
On May 19, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> For those planning on changing the kernel to use XML -  
> <bold><flashing><underscore>
>   PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION
> </underscore></flashing></bold>

Just to clarify, the demonstration of the spring based assembly I  
checked in the other day, does not in any way change the main line of  
the geronimo, the geronimo kernel, or any other code in geronimo.  It  
simply uses the plugin layers of geronimo.

-dain

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

ammulder
In reply to this post by Jeremy Boynes
        Need we use all caps for this?  It seems kind of impolite.  Also,
who is authorized to decide when a discussion "has gone on long enough"?

        Finally, I disagree.  I don't want to just drop the ball for an
indeterminate period of time (or at least, what seems indeterminate to
anyone who's not privy to the TCK testing status).  I can understand that
you might not want to actually change the implementation in mid-stream if
it's going to affect the testing process -- but surely we (especially
those of "we" who are not actively TCK testing) can discuss and
investigate some options in the mean time.  I promise to call a vote
before making a change that could derail the certification testing.  :)

Thanks,
        Aaron

P.S. My biggest objection to this is really the "after certification"
part, where we're not actually allowed to say how long we think that will
be.

On Thu, 19 May 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> This discussion has gone on long enough - please can we put it on hold
> until after certification.
>
> For those discussing dualing implementations - PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON
> HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION.
>
> For those planning on changing the kernel to use XML -
> <bold><flashing><underscore>
>    PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION
> </underscore></flashing></bold>
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

Jeremy Boynes
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Need we use all caps for this?  It seems kind of impolite.

IMO, YES.

The discussion has been going on for a week soaking up a lot of time.
We've already seen the kernel refactored with no discussion on the list,
now we're talking about competing implementations of different
mechanisms, kernel rearchitecture, changes in runtime footprint and
semantics and so on.

Meanwhile, we don't seem be making progress towards certification or the
1.0 release which a lot of people are asking for.

WE NEED TO STOP TINKERING AND SHIP A RELEASE.

(yes I am shouting)

> Also, who is authorized to decide when a discussion "has gone on long enough"?
>

Well, surely someone who is part of it ;-)

> Finally, I disagree.  I don't want to just drop the ball for an
> indeterminate period of time (or at least, what seems indeterminate to
> anyone who's not privy to the TCK testing status).  I can understand that
> you might not want to actually change the implementation in mid-stream if
> it's going to affect the testing process -- but surely we (especially
> those of "we" who are not actively TCK testing) can discuss and
> investigate some options in the mean time.  I promise to call a vote
> before making a change that could derail the certification testing.  :)
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> P.S. My biggest objection to this is really the "after certification"
> part, where we're not actually allowed to say how long we think that will
> be.
>

You chose not to participate in that process, I assume because your
"availability tends to vary over time." If you have time now to commit
to refactoring XML, can you instead help with the certification people
are asking for?

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

Re: Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

Dain Sundstrom
In reply to this post by ammulder
On May 20, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

>     Need we use all caps for this?  It seems kind of impolite.  Also,
> who is authorized to decide when a discussion "has gone on long  
> enough"?
>
>     Finally, I disagree.  I don't want to just drop the ball for an
> indeterminate period of time (or at least, what seems indeterminate to
> anyone who's not privy to the TCK testing status).  I can  
> understand that
> you might not want to actually change the implementation in mid-
> stream if
> it's going to affect the testing process -- but surely we (especially
> those of "we" who are not actively TCK testing) can discuss and
> investigate some options in the mean time.  I promise to call a vote
> before making a change that could derail the certification  
> testing.  :)

I totally agree.

This is an important subject and we have delayed discussions like  
this long enough.

-dain


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

David Jencks-2
I'm afraid I agree with Jeremy.  Sorry guys but the proposals for
change come across to me as half-baked vague dreams that mix together
multiple issues from widely different domains with no actual solution.  
I'm finding responding to this ----very--- time consuming and I see no
progress yet on resolving anything.  I would appreciate everyone
currently involved focussing the energy they are putting into this
discussion on finishing certification  -- I believe all current
participants have access to the tck -- and resuming the discussion with
concrete examples of the dangers of serializaion and the utter coolness
of untrammelled xml AFTER that long delayed milestone.

thanks
david jencks

On May 20, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On May 20, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>>     Need we use all caps for this?  It seems kind of impolite.  Also,
>> who is authorized to decide when a discussion "has gone on long
>> enough"?
>>
>>     Finally, I disagree.  I don't want to just drop the ball for an
>> indeterminate period of time (or at least, what seems indeterminate to
>> anyone who's not privy to the TCK testing status).  I can understand
>> that
>> you might not want to actually change the implementation in
>> mid-stream if
>> it's going to affect the testing process -- but surely we (especially
>> those of "we" who are not actively TCK testing) can discuss and
>> investigate some options in the mean time.  I promise to call a vote
>> before making a change that could derail the certification testing.  
>> :)
>
> I totally agree.
>
> This is an important subject and we have delayed discussions like this
> long enough.
>
> -dain
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Serialization vs. XML - NOT NOW PLEASE

Alan Cabrera
On 5/20/2005 3:11 PM, David Jencks wrote (paraphrased):

> I'm afraid I agree with Jeremy.  I'm finding responding to this
> ----very--- time consuming and I see no progress yet on resolving
> anything.

I'm glad that you chimed in here.  I was going to reply that I'm cool
with this discussion but, I see that you find this burdensome; now that
I think of it, it is tough for me to juggle this as well.  If it does
proceed, I'm not sure that I, or others that are working on
certification, will be able to keep along with the thread; you may need
to repeat yourself after we're done.


Regards,
Alan