[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
Day trader will evolve over time to incorporate new standards (J2EE 5.0)
and will also be expanded to incorporate different non-J2EE
features (Hibernate is one option). Regardless of where it is Day
trader needs to have a specific release so performance comparisons will
have some relevance.
At a minimum we should probably release the EAR and deployment plans
with Geronimo for given Milestones / releases so there is a stable
reference for the release. I suggest we incorporate the source code
with the ear so that becomes the reference source as well.
David's point is spot on as the deployment plans and other factors
affect Day Trader so that is an issue. I think if we start it off with
Geronimo makes sense and we course correct if we need to.
Matt
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2005, at 12:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> My concern is primarily with the geronimo plan. While presumably
>> the app itself isn't going to need to change to be deployed to other
>> app servers, I expect each server to need a separate plan.
>
>
> Wouldn't that be part of the DayTrader project to maintain, since they
> know what they need to deploy, and that may change over time?
>
>> I was thinking we'd keep the app and geronimo plan together in synch
>> with the geronimo version. Obviously this is not ideal, but I
>> haven't thought of a better solution. Maybe have the app separate
>> and a module in geronimo/apps to build a configuration for the
>> current geronimo version?
>
>
> Or just force the people working on DayTrader to follow, or stablize
> our plan :)
>
> I see what you're saying.
>
> (My biggest concern with asking the question was to see if it was
> because people had different ideas about how "heavy" a subproject was.)
>
> geir
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm just curious what people expect to happen here. I'm happy to
>>> go with the flow, but at least want to understand the flow.
>>>
>>> DayTrader is an application that is used as a performance tool for
>>> any J2EE server, so it's not Geronimo only. (Contrast that with the
>>> console, as an example.) It makes little sense to me to tie it to
>>> Geronimo releases no matter what the stability of Geronimo. We can
>>> use it to measure Geronimo against other servers, and should use it
>>> daily to ensure that we don't regress performance- wise. To do that,
>>> I think we'd want to have a released version of it, so we could at
>>> compare apples to apples. The tools can't vary freely and randomly
>>> with the code we're trying to test.... Matt would have a better
>>> perspective, I guess.
>>>
>>> Instead of a new subproject, which people seem to find a bad idea
>>> for reasons I don't grok - as it's just out of SVN trunk, has
>>> separate release cycles from G server, and has some mention on the
>>> website - how about at least putting it into devtools? Can we avoid
>>> adding to the clutter of trunk, something we seemed to support
>>> earlier today?
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:48 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> +1 Accept the DayTrader donation into the project
>>>> -1 Do not create Applications subproject. Leave in trunk.
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 20, 2005, at 4:28 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>> > (Keep it simple for now. Review this later when Geronimo is more
>>>> stable. I think
>>>> > it is too early to try to have applications with their own
>>>> release cycle)
>>>>
>>>> Well put.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
