Should we ask on the user list too and see what users have to say? ++Vamsi
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Tim McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, The JAXB refactoring of the GEP 2.1.x code is almost complete for the > 2.0.x > and 2.1.x versions of the Geronimo servers. Most major functions are now > working > and we are much better positioned to handle future schema changes in a > more > timely manner. Traditionally, the GEP has supported 3 to 4 versions of the > Geronimo server (primarily to provide a migration/upgrade path), and we > had > originally planned on supporting v1.1, v2.0.x, v2.1.x. However, since we > are > almost 2 months behind the release of the v2.1 Geronimo server I would > like to > discuss some possible alternatives for supporting the v1.1 Geronimo server > in > this release of the GEP: > > #1. Proceed with the JAXB refactoring work for the v1.1 code (obviously > the most > expensive in terms of time and testing required) > > #2. Leave the v1.1 support in the current EMF implementation (i.e., the > JAXB and > EMF implementations would co-exist) > > #3. Remove support altogether for v1.1 in this release of the GEP -- > support > only the v2.0 and v2.1 Geronimo servers (the least expensive in terms of > time > and testing required) > > I'm now of the opinion that we should pursue alternative #3 and remove > v1.1 > support entirely. My primary rationale is that the the old 2.0 release of > the > GEP can still be used to provide v1.1 server support, and still provides a > migration path from v1.1 to v2.0. It's true that we would lose the v1.1 to > v2.1 > migration path, but this is mitigated somewhat since the support in the > GEP for > the v2.0 and v2.1 versions of the server is almost identical. Equally > important > is that we could then focus entirely on fixing the few remaining JIRAs and > augmenting our JUnit testcases, and release the GEP 2.1 quicker (i.e., in > the > next week or 10 days). Thoughts ?? > > -- > Thanks, > Tim McConnell >
