First off...lets get over this...DJ has a great thread open. I really don't want to continue this discussion as its wasting all of our time. Comments in line...and this is it for responding to this nonsense...time to move on...ok?
Greg Wilkins wrote: > Jeff Genender wrote: >> I am sorry Jules, I am -1 on the change and I stand firm on that. > > Jeff, > > I don't understand your total -1, nor the fact that you actually backed > out the change before anybody could reply to your email. Greg, based on the fact that I -1'd Jan's inclusion of Axion on 1/5, and it was never tended too, am I to believe the same would have occurred here? If you think I should have waited a few days, then perhaps I could have. But based on past history with you guys and handling -1s, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to think that you weren't going to remove it. Its now a full week (1/5-1/12) after the -1, and it has not been removed. How long is a reasonable time to wait for you to back out -1s? > > I sat in the room with Jules and Jan for three days while they worked on > this. > They certainly were discussing all the threads about this and they tried > several times for a more minimal solution (name spaces etc.) but > nothing else proved workable. That, in and of itself is the problem Greg. Lets bring this out on the lists, not in a room with Jules, Jan, and yourself. Jules said, "Jan and Greg are staying with me for a few days, starting monday. We will go through the integration together and keep the list up to date with any issues that we find." He never brought the discussion as he stated, and then followed it up today (1/12) with: "Jan and I have just refactored the Geronimo Jetty and Tomcat integrations to take the same approach to the installation of a 3rd party session manager, to ease the integration of WADI. This is now checked in on Geronimo's trunk." Where was the list up to date on discussion of what you have found, relative to the requests we made previously on the lists about what we want to see in the integration? Am I missing something here? > > So they moved one aspect of the config out of the WEB-INF and as a result > they were able to get a webapp deployed on a mixed cluster of geronimo-jetty > and geronimo-tomcat - HOORAY! Great...lets chat about it...I am all for open discussion on this! Lets see what they came up with...and work with the ideas into something that is a good solution for the team and community! But I wouldn't say the change (one aspect) was that simple from an impact perspective, Greg. > > They deserve thanks for a good achievement and some peer review to > help them improve it. The certainly don't deserve unilateral action > to erase their work and send every body back to square -1. Peer review? And where did that occur? See the above comments about Jules working with you on this, then checking it all in. I saw no peer review. Remember, this is an Apache project (Geronimo)...you should be sharing info with the community. Nobody said it wasn't a valiant attempt, nor that the intentions weren't good. Based on the Axion issues, one of my -1s has nothing to do with intentions, it has to do with putting the database hard coded dependency in the container. That is a serious architectural flaw. I -1'd that on the Jetty side as well. If you needed to try things out...and get a review afterwards, why didn't you just cut a quick branch and show off your changes? Nobody would have -1d that. > > I agree with David that the session manager configuration should be moved > again to a clustering GBean, but that does not mean that we should move it > back > to WEB-INF while we wait for a better solution. This was a minimal solution > that can be put in place in time for 1.0.1. We don't have time to create > a clustering module before then. Greg, I think the point here is we all need to discuss this before doing this. The Apache way, remember? If you all discussed this openly, perhaps the config could be built by now, yes? > > As for the axion dependancy, I do believe this is a container dependancy. > Axion is being used to persist the session - which is a web container > function, not a webapp function. We had discussed this and I thought you > had > agreed with me on this point - that we should not have to put WADI > dependancies > into WEB-INF/lib of the apps so they can be clustered. Greg, that is a complete fabrication of the truth. I am sorry Greg, I never agreed with Axion being in the container. I did agree with the ability to inject the clustering as a pluggable configuration at the container or context level. That is as far as I agreed. If we need a connector (READ: RAR) to be used for the database, then this is fine...its a pluggable component. But as a hard code, its simply wrong. As for Axion being used to persist the session and is a container dependency, I disagree...lets look at where axion is being used in WADI: ./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/sandbox/jcache/TestJCache.java ./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/activecluster/TestCluster.java ./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestContextualiser.java ./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestGianni.java ./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestMotables.java ./modules/core/src/test/org/codehaus/wadi/test/TestReplication.java ./modules/itest/src/test/java/org/codehaus/wadi/itest/ContainerTestDecorator.java These are all test cases Greg. I am not understanding why its not using a connector if it needs a database. > > > Of you 4 points, which is the one that is driving your -1? Ie, if point > 4) is address (not clashing with tomcat clustering), is that sufficient? > I do think that 1,2 and 3 have been addressed and none seam worth a -1 in > any case. Sorry, I don't think any of the points have been addressed at all. You want a list, here are some: The hard code of the wadi manager...the Axion dependency, lack of pluggable configuration, lack of ability to set Clustering options (properties) at the clustering component level. Shall I go on? I think we have been through this. Lets stop this nonsense and move forward on an open discussion with David Jencks' thread. I think if we can concentrate on the positive aspects, we can get this properly going. Can we work together as a team, Greg? Lets move on guys...we all should be moving forward here and stop dwelling on this. > > regards >
