We vote for release candidates? I don't recall doing that before.
+1
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I apologize for resending this to the lists. I inadvertantly did not
put [vote] in the subject line so it may not have been apparent. The
remainder of this e-mail is the same content that was distributed last
night.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised about
the first candidate have been addressed.
They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices
from the distribution. I added them. Guillaume also pointed out
that he noted that there should be a Third Party Notices. This was
not included in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so I did
not follow it up. Thoughts?
Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread
started by Hernan. The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was the
source used to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will find in
the build.
To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used rc1
which Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions so I
trust that works here.
JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo
under CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new deployment
problem that left partially deployed artifacts in the repository.
I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and we
are significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0. We have a lot
of improvement left for CMP EJBs. It appears that the performance
improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race condition when
running under DB2. I'm afraid that the only way to address the
problem is to add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB that allow for the
specification of Isolation Levels for individual beans. This is a
relatively simple change but the build as it stands is specification
compliant. I would prefer to let this release go forward since CMP
2.1 EJBs are not nearly as common as the other J2EE components. I
would like to address this in 1.1.1 however I don't think we've
locked down whether that would be allowed or not. The change would
affect TranQL and OpenEJB so they are really included components so
I'd be interested in people's feedback.
So please accept a named RC1. Your voting and feedback are for:
Geronimo 1.1
DayTrader 1.1
Specs 1.1
The vote will stand for 72 hours. Issues raised will be discussed
and if we conclude that there is a bug that must be addressed then we
will mitigate the problem and respin a new rc for a 72 hour vote.
If this is accepted all three of the above components will be
released simultaneously.
Here are the builds for your review and comment:
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip
Looking forward to your comments and feedback.
