My comments inline...
Greg Wilkins wrote:
Jules Gosnell wrote:
I suggest -
Jan, Greg and I conceded that Jeff could have been more involved in
discussion before this change went in.
+1
We all agree to overlook all current technical differences.
I don't think "overlook" is the right word. Continue discussing
would be better. See below.
Continue discussing is better. Life is iteration.
We all agree to put aside whatever bad feelings may have arisen from
this incident.
I am deeply dissappointed that the conversation degenerated
as it did. More so that neither the participants nor the
community were able to publicly or privately disarm the thread.
As I'm no stranger to such threads - I'd really appreciate
if third parties could point out publicly or private where
I went wrong and why my words were seen as attacks?
But yes +1 lets move on.
Since you asked for feedback. Personally, I probably contacted Jeff offline
first to see what was up and try to ensure that I understood his issues. At
that point I think documenting and moving on with the list would have worked. I
know we want to work in the public but it seemed based on Jeff's response that
perhaps a quick "offline" chat could have avoided the public debate. Anyway,
hindsight is 20-20.
WADI side :
...
I will resubmit the change as a patch to Jan and Jeff.
Jetty/Tomcat side :
Jan and Jeff will take this patch, and all relevant input.
If they feel that they need further discussion, they will have it.
They will implement a simple, unified solution to the issue for all
existing cases and get it in to Geronimo 1.0.1
Actually, before trying the patch again, I think we need to back off a
little bit more and get the requirements straight. ie what is it that
we are trying to achieve for 1.0.1
My understanding was that there were two goals:
1) make clustering work in the release.
+1 to this. What "work" means to me is that any outstanding issues related to
clustering not working are addressed. Improved documentation would be useful
for the users too.
2) Unified clustering configuration that allows an unmodified web app
to be deployed on g-jetty and g-tomcat.
I think this is more of a 1.1 issue. I think the items that would need to be
surfaced for 1.0.1 is how large are the changes and how close to complete are
they. Many people have expressed that 1.0.1 should go out "in a few weeks" so I
expect that this is more fit and finish rather than significant new function.
Hopefully we all agree that 1) is a requirement and i think Jules should
open a JIRA to capture that some things were broken in 1.0 and need to
be fixed for 1.0.1
However, I'm not so sure we agree on the need for 2) in 1.0.1 and I
think that has been the cause of much of the disagreement. It appears
that to achieve 2) may require either some compromises (eg clustering
configs in container plans) or significant work (create share stand alone
clustering plan).
I think that removing differences between Jetty and tomcat is a high priority
and that we can accept some compromises to unify things for 1.0.1, as that
will halve any breakage needed for 1.1 etc. Thus I do think that
2) is a requirement - but others may disagree????
I think 2 is important but not required. The only holdback here from my
perspective is how will this affect users going from 1.0.1 to 1.1 and on. If
there is going to be a large disruption if we don't do this in 1.0.1 and a fix
is available and simply needs to be tested then I think we can consider for
1.0.1. My gut tells me to wait but I don't have enough info.
regards
