(1) I think N-2 is a good rule to go by.
On 10/23/07, Tim McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, I have a couple questions I'd like to discuss about the > Geronimo > Eclipse plugin: > > 1. How many versions of the Geronimo server should we continue to > simultaneously > support in the Geronimo Eclipse plugin ?? > 2. What level of support should we provide in the Eclipse plugin for the > Geronimo 1.2 Beta ?? > > My thoughts and/or opinions are as follows (simply to start the > discussions): > > 1. The plugin now has support for four Geronimo releases (i.e., 1, 1.1.1, > 1.2, > and 2.0). I would like to support only three versions at a time. This > would > still allow an upward migration path for people who want to migrate their > projects from older to new versions (which is apparently one of the major > reasons for providing support for multiple versions to begin with). I feel > though that support for only three versions at a time would facilitate a > more > stable (and smaller) code base, it would mitigate some of the test > scenario > permutations inherit with multiple version support, and ease the > implementation > transitions from one release of the GEP to another. We've had and continue > to > have difficulties supporting the Geronimo 2.0.2 deployment plans in the > GEP, > which I'm confident will finally be rectified in the next maintenance > release of > the GEP, but it's only exacerbated by supporting so many versions. > > 2. I would like to start to untangle some of the interdependencies we now > have > with the various features in the plugin in the upcoming GEP maintenance > release. I know very little about the Geronimo 1.2 Beta, but I get the > sense > that it is more of a "one-off" rather than a nature progression from 1.1.1to > 2.0.x, and I just wonder though how much the 1.2 support in the plugin is > really > being used. If it's not being used, I would actually like to remove the > 1.2 Beta > code from the plugin in the upcoming maintenance release for the reasons > I've > mentioned above. > > Thoughts ?? > > -- > Thanks, > Tim McConnell > >
