Hey Joe, Which patch is the most up-to-date one to use?
Jeff Joe Bohn wrote: > Thank you Jeff. > > Please note that as you look at GERONIMO-1613, ( > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1613 ) > the only patch you should need to apply is the latest one .... > 1613_RemoveDeps4.patch. This is all inclusive of the other patches > with the exception of the first patch that Dave Jencks already > integrated a few weeks back. > > BTW, there are also two JIRAs for some problems that I noticed were > introduced as a result of the first patch (sigh) .... GERONIMO-1634 ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1634 ) and GERONIMO-1699 > ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1699 ). > > Joe > > > Jeff Genender wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> Thanks for working on this...I'll take a look. >> >> Jeff >> >> Joe Bohn wrote: >> >>> I'd really like to get a committer to look into these changes and >>> hopefully commit them fairly quickly. >>> >>> David J ... I know that you're tied up with the configID changes. Is >>> there somebody else that could take a quick look at these changes? >>> >>> I'm concerned that the current activity to convert from M1 to M2 might >>> result in some of these changes being lost in the conversion. For >>> example, the patch includes a change to the tomcat module which I see is >>> being actively converted to M2. >>> >>> I should note that these changes are a bit risky and will possibly cause >>> some NoClassDefFoundErrors on specific scenarios when integrated. I >>> have done the following tests for both the jetty and tomcat assemblies >>> but I obviously can't cover everything. 1) Verified the itests are >>> successful. 2) Verified that deployment of a web app works 3) Verified >>> that the main console portlets still function (all main GUIs presented >>> without error and some detailed functions verified) 4) Verified that >>> all of the daytrader application web primitives continued to work. At >>> this point it might be best to integrate the changes and deal with the >>> fall-out. Thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Joe >>> >>> Joe Bohn wrote: >>> >>>> Ah ... thanks for the clarification Kevan. In that case I don't >>>> think it is needed in rmi-naming with the uber-spec removed. I >>>> couldn't find any reason to include the corba spec in the rmi-naming >>>> config. I've created a new patch with this change and added it to >>>> GERONIMO-1613. >>>> >>>> So, with the corba spec removed our image size is back down to about >>>> 15.7 meg. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> Kevan Miller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/3/06, *Joe Bohn* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I just added an updated patch to Geronimo-1613 >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1613 >>>>> >>>>> After some painstaking effort, I was finally able to remove the >>>>> uber-spec dependency from rmi-naming which should have resulted >>>>> in an >>>>> additional savings in little-G of nearly 1.2 meg. >>>>> Unfortunately, I had >>>>> to add in some individual spec jars that were not previously >>>>> included >>>>> and which decreased the savings somewhat. >>>>> >>>>> The real disappointment was when I picked up the latest image >>>>> yesterday >>>>> to create the patch and noticed Kevan's change to include the >>>>> CORBA spec >>>>> in rmi-naming to work around some other problem. This adds back in >>>>> about 640K. The comment indicates that this is only temporary. >>>>> How >>>>> long will it be needed there and is somebody working to remove it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>> If you've removed the uber-jar, then you should be able to remove the >>>>> CORBA spec jar (assuming you're including the CORBA spec jar at an >>>>> appropriate location...). The uber-jar currently contains bad corba >>>>> spec classes. The dependency in rmi-naming put the CORBA spec jar in >>>>> the classpath in front of the uber-jar. I also plan on fixing the >>>>> uber-jar (getting the proper spec classes in the uber-jar). >>>>> >>>>> --kevan >>>>> >>>>> So, after all that the latest patch only takes us from 16.4 to >>>>> about >>>>> 16.3 meg ... but we'll drop more when CORBA comes out of >>>>> rmi-naming. >>>>> >>>>> Would it be possible to get this patch committed to trunk before >>>>> too >>>>> much more work happens on the maven2 effort? I think that it would >>>>> benefit the migration and integration if these updated project.xmls >>>>> were >>>>> used as the starting point. >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joe Bohn >>>>> joe.bohn at earthlink.net <http://earthlink.net> >>>>> >>>>> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he >>>>> cannot >>>>> lose." -- Jim Elliot >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
