Honestly I think we can't do anything else than 2.0 but s/openejb/tomee/ and s/5.x/2.x/ will work if we move to org.apache.tomee.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> 2015-03-05 16:02 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > I like JLouis original proposal regarding aligning it with the EE versions. > > OpenEJB was EJB centric. Thus it was very closely bound to EJB spec > versions. > TomEE is EE umbrella centric. Thus it is closely bound to the EE umbrella > spec version > > TomEE-1.7.x -> TomEE-6.0.x > TomEE-2.0 -> TomEE-7.x > > That way it is really easy for users to know what they get! > > Maybe we let 1.7.x as it is, but we should really go for TomEE-7.0.0 > instead of 2.0 > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 05.01.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro < > [email protected]>: > > > > Definitely useful thoughts Jon. > > Thx for sharing. > > > > -- > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Gallimore < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Just wanted to chip in with my $0.02... I'll try not to flame anyone or > >> propose anything too controversial :). > >> > >> What are the release tools in question - is this the Maven Release > plugin > >> or a TomEE specific tool (I'm thinking along the lines of: > >> > >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/sandbox/release-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/tools/release/Release.java > >> )? > >> I ask as I'm wondering whether improving / fixing the tool is good > option? > >> > >> That said, I have no objection to aligning the TomEE and OpenEJB > numbers. > >> My personal opinion is that I'd avoid going back numerically (might be > >> perceived as a step back, and we previously had OpenEJB 2 which looked > >> quite different to OpenEJB >= 3 if I remember correctly). Jumping both > to a > >> version 5 might look like a substantial update for TomEE that would > require > >> some explanation. I'm less keen on aligning to the Tomcat version, but > >> aligning to the Java EE version could make it quite simple. So, TomEE > 1.7.x > >> / OpenEJB 4.7.x would become TomEE/OpenEJB 6.x and TomEE 2.0 / OpenEJB > 5.0 > >> would becoming TomEE/OpenEJB 7.0. > >> > >> Personally I'm not in favour of splitting the release cycles of OpenEJB > and > >> TomEE - I think splitting them might create more work in managing > >> dependencies, and might introduce some confusion between what versions > of > >> OpenEJB and TomEE are compatible with each other. I would also be > concerned > >> that there might be even more overhead in trying to actually do the > >> releases than there is now, as we'd effectively have to do a release for > >> OpenEJB and another for TomEE, with one being dependent on the other. > >> > >> Hope that these are useful thoughts. > >> > >> Jon > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected] > >>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> We can for sure downgrade openejb since we would use org.apache.tomee > as > >>> groupid and finally be almost consistent - what we are not since tomee > is > >>> the openejb name. > >>> > >>> We can do it for tomee 2. We can even rename all openejb artifacts to > >> tomee > >>> and assume we cant split both. > >>> Le 3 janv. 2015 11:06, "Jean-Louis Monteiro" <[email protected] > > > >> a > >>> écrit : > >>> > >>>> I do mainly agree on the result and the consequences to have 2 > >> different > >>>> versions in the same tree. > >>>> The best would have been to have OpenEJB as a separate subproject with > >>> its > >>>> own lifecycle and versioning and to use it in TomEE like any other dep > >>>> (openjpa, cxf to name a few). > >>>> > >>>> Because usually we update in both sides OpenEJB and TomEE, we decided > >> to > >>>> stick with one tree only containing TomEE, the Maven plugin, OpenEJB, > >> etc > >>>> with the consequences you mentioned Andy. It definitely has some > >> benefits > >>>> but yes the drawbacks are heavy as well. > >>>> > >>>> That said, I'm wondering if OpenEJB and TomEE at least have a > different > >>>> lifecycle. If not, then at least they should have the same version in > >> the > >>>> same tree. > >>>> > >>>> The problem I can see. > >>>> - bumping TomEE version to 4.x for example is quite "dangerous". TomEE > >> by > >>>> itself is pretty young even if most of the codebase is old. Switching > >>> from > >>>> 1.x to 4.x without anything in the middle is doable but hard to argue > >>>> considering we only released less than 10 TomEE versions. > >>>> > >>>> - using tomcat versioning, I'm -1 for this. Same drawbacks as previous > >>> and > >>>> no real benefits. We could use the Java EE web profile versions or > Java > >>> EE > >>>> versions, like TomEE 6.x for Java EE 6 Web Profile, TomEE 7.x for Java > >>> EE 7 > >>>> Web Profile, etc > >>>> > >>>> - downgrading OpenEJB version is even more complicated in my opinion > >> and > >>> as > >>>> we kept the same groupId / artifactId, it can be a big Maven hell. > >>>> > >>>> What's "the less worst" solution we could use? > >>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have their own lifecycle, I'd then keep > >> the > >>>> versions and split the source tree and the releases > >>>> Considering OpenEJB and TomEE have different lifecycle, I'd go with > the > >>>> same versioning, probably using OpenEJB versions or better EE version. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andy Gumbrecht < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I know this is a flamed subject, but here goes. > >>>>> > >>>>> A major problem on release is the double barrelled version of OpenEJB > >>> 4.x > >>>>> and TomEE 1.x and 5.x / 2.x. This makes using release tools > >> virtually > >>>>> impossible and the whole process has to have manual interaction. We > >>> shoot > >>>>> ourselves in the foot with this one every time. > >>>>> > >>>>> I know project separation is a no go area for some, so another option > >>>>> would be to get versions aligned. Also a huge point of contention. > >> The > >>>>> issue is the version to use? > >>>>> > >>>>> So this is just to throw a rabbit into the lions den - How about > >>> aligning > >>>>> with the underlying Tomcat major version, something like > >> TomEE/OpenEJB > >>>> 7.x > >>>>> for Tomcat 7.x and 8.x for Tomcat 8? > >>>>> > >>>>> Andy. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Andy Gumbrecht > >>>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > >>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
