My vote goes to option 3 as well for reasons already stated by Jarek. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Jarek Gawor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Option #3. The 2.1 and 2.1.1 users should be upgrading to 2.1.2 anyway > and I think it's ok to say that samples will not install with 2.1 or > 2.1.1. And also we don't have too many (if any) people asking for > these samples to run on 2.1 and 2.1.1. > > Jarek > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We've been going back and forth on samples now for some time. There are > > multiple reasons why the samples are not yet released -- but one of them > has > > to do with compatibility for the 2.1.x releases. > > > > Up until now I've been assuming that we would release samples for 2.1 for > > the sake of completeness and ensure that we can get those same samples > > working on 2.1.1 and 2.1.2+. If it wasn't possible to get the same > samples > > working on higher releases then I figured we would release 2.1.1 and > 2.1.2+ > > versions of the samples. Now, I'm starting to wonder if it is worth the > > effort to release samples for anything other than 2.1.2. > > > > Here are the facts: > > - We can add artifact-alias entries to get 2.1 samples working on a 2.1.2 > > server or even a 2.2 server. > > - A fix was required for the alias processing which was not included in > > 2.1.1. Therefore, if we release samples for 2.1 we will not be able to > run > > them on 2.1.1 - but we could run them on 2.1.2 (when released). That > seems > > like a strange scenario - 2.1 ok, 2.1.2 no, 2.1.2 ok. If we release > 2.1.1 > > samples in addition to 2.1 then which of those do we point users to > leverage > > on 2.1.2? IMO it would be clearer to say we support 2.1.2+. > > - Is there a strong need for samples on older releases or are they > primarily > > of value on the latest release? As Lin pointed out to me, users looking > at > > samples will most likely be working with our latest release. If we > release > > samples for 2.1/2.1.1 will anybody actually use them (assuming we release > > 2.1.2 and follow that up quickly with the samples for 2.1.2)? > > > > So these are the obvious choices: > > 1) Release samples for 2.1. Release another version of samples for > 2.1.1. > > Then either release samples for 2.1.2 or include alias entries in the > 2.1.2 > > server so that the 2.1/2.1.1 samples will work on 2.1.2. > > OR > > 2) Release samples for 2.1. Skip 2.1.1. Add artifact aliases to > support > > the 2.1 samples on 2.1.2 and document that we don't support samples on > > 2.1.1. > > OR > > 3) Release samples for 2.1.2 and then address any future 2.1.x releases > with > > artifact aliases. Point users that want to leverage samples to do so on > > 2.1.2+ and document that we don't support samples on 2.1 or 2.1.1. > > > > There are a few potential issues with option #3: > > - The ldap sample requires directory server to be installed on G or the > use > > of an external LDAP server. The recommended approach for the installed > > directory server is to install the Directory plugin. However, this > plugin > > is currently only released for a G 2.1 server. We would need to either > > release a new version of the Directory plugin or do the compatibility > trick > > with aliases again for 2.1.2. > > - The 2.1 & 2.1.1 welcome page references to the jsp, servlet, and > > ldap-sample examples will never work. Actually, they won't work even if > we > > release 2.1 & 2.1.1 samples unless we want to change the groupid/module > > names of these samples back to the original names prior to a release of > them > > (which I doubt we would want to do). > > > > Any other issues, recommendations, or thoughts? > > > > Joe > > > -- ~Jason Warner
