| After thinking about this some more... I'm retracting my statement. Regardless of what incompatibilities or migration steps that will need to be taken in future releases, Geronimo 1.0 is an official release and thus there should always be associated tooling to go along with it. I think removing the G1.0 support and simply replacing it with G1.1 deployment support is the wrong thing to do and instead G1.1 support should be cumulatively added. Even though this bodes a little more work I think it is the right thing to do. Therefore rather then delay the release of the eclipse plugin, I feel that I should go ahead and freeze and release the plugin as-is. Then as soon as G1.1 is release I will provide via update manager a new version of the feature which supports G1.1. Now since the deployment plan editors in the current plugin are very limited and incomplete, and the fact that G1.1 configId changes will affect the UI, my current thinking is to replace the G1.0 deployment plan models with G1.1 in the 1.1 version of the plugin. This means that the G1.1 plugin will list both G1.0 and G1.1 as a runtime type and a server type, but only selection of G1.1 will contain support for the editors. If there are not any objections within 24 hours I will officially release the 1.0 version of plugin. - sachin On Feb 4, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
|
- Re: configId issue... tooling impact Sachin Patel
- Re: configId issue... tooling impact Matt Hogstrom
