We always wanted shorter cycles between the major releases, and we
could never implement that in practice (even when I was working on
Cayenne full time). But we should definitely try.
The problem is too many things that get started in parallel, each
taking lots of effort to make it production quality throughout the
stack.
In regards to 3.0, I think my initial list is still mostly valid:
http://markmail.org/message/ynuaswnpgenindsn
so except for the SoC tasks (thanks to amazing job done by Andrey),
there's still a bunch of half-baked things. Let me comment on the
individual items:
* EJBQL missing features (constructors, flattened relationships,
better error reporting). I guess constructors and error reporting can
be moved to 3.1; flattened relationships is a must IMO.
* Vertical Inheritance. This turned into a horizontal inheritance
effort, but done in a generic way, so we are advancing all types of
inheritance at once. Still need to do the hardest parts of the runtime.
* Multiple cayenne.xml in the project. No progress on that yet. As
much as I'd think of this as a killer feature, this is a good
candidate for 3.1. Sigh... I'd really love an ability to define
listeners in the mapping created outside of the main Cayenne mapping
project. Otherwise the listener concept doesn't scale well at all. I
am very frustrated with the current rigid implementation.
* Generating Query and Procedure Access Code. This is done for
SelectQueries; need to add support for other queries, and better
Modeler support.
* Modeler: support for embeddables. This can probably remain a
"stealth" feature in Cayenne. We can add Modeler support in 3.1
* Modeler: support for EJBQL queries. We need that.
* Tutorials. Maybe we don't have to ship tutorial code with the
download (we stopped doing that with 3.0M1), and keep it documentation
only... But it would be nice to add extra things to the existing
tutorials, such as listeners.
* (new) Modeler support for flattened attributes. Runtime supports
them for many months, still most users can't take advantage of it.
I don't have the rights to create milestones in Jira, but some
triage work to organise remaining tasks might be useful.
I added you to cayenne-admin group. You should have this permissions
now.
Andrus
On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 23/10/2008, at 1:46 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
We got a bunch of tasks closed and new tasks started since we had
this discussion last time. So is everybody ok with tagging M5 or
are there reasons to wait longer?
Absolutely. It has been long enough since M4. For that matter, once
we resolve the API changes surrounding generics, what is preventing
a release of 3.0? I think it would be good for the public visibility
of Cayenne to have a final release of 3.0 soon. If it were not for
the API effects of moving to generics m4 could well have been
labelled 3.0 and this coming release 3.1.
I believe we are already advocating to people that they use 3.0M4 in
production, so we should formalise that with a properly labelled
release. Should we agree to:
3.0M5: next week
3.0M6: inheritance and prefetch (and other bits which are in
progress now), plus finalisation of generics
3.0 beta 1: no more API changes
I don't have the rights to create milestones in Jira, but some
triage work to organise remaining tasks might be useful.
Regards
Ari
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
