Re: Beta 2?
I still wanted to get the tutorial in the release. The tutorial is done, but requires artifacts to be published in objectstyle.org repo, as well as adding it to the assembly script. We have a long Christmas weekend in Belarus, so hopefully I can finish that and post the RC1 artifacts. Andrus On Dec 24, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote: Looks like all modeler errors that blocked RC1 were fixed. Shall we try to build the artifacts? 2009/12/15 Andrus Adamchik On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: I want to regenerate the schema docs. I'll try and get that in the next day or two. Great. But wonder what has changed in the schema? We definitely didn't make any changes to the 3.0 configuration since B1. Or is it just the documentation parts? Also, while I think of it, we need to update the schema for 3.1 and the merging of the driver.xml. Andrus do you want to do it, or would you like me to? I'd appreciate your help, but let's hold off a bit with that until we switch the runtime and the Modeler to the new implementation of the configuration classes, as there may be more changes. Andrus -- Andrey
Re: Beta 2?
Looks like all modeler errors that blocked RC1 were fixed. Shall we try to build the artifacts? 2009/12/15 Andrus Adamchik > > On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: > > I want to regenerate the schema docs. I'll try and get that in the next >> day or two. >> > > Great. But wonder what has changed in the schema? We definitely didn't make > any changes to the 3.0 configuration since B1. Or is it just the > documentation parts? > > > Also, while I think of it, we need to update the schema for 3.1 and the >> merging of the driver.xml. Andrus do you want to do it, or would you like me >> to? >> > > I'd appreciate your help, but let's hold off a bit with that until we > switch the runtime and the Modeler to the new implementation of the > configuration classes, as there may be more changes. > > Andrus > > -- Andrey
Re: Beta 2?
On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: I want to regenerate the schema docs. I'll try and get that in the next day or two. Great. But wonder what has changed in the schema? We definitely didn't make any changes to the 3.0 configuration since B1. Or is it just the documentation parts? Also, while I think of it, we need to update the schema for 3.1 and the merging of the driver.xml. Andrus do you want to do it, or would you like me to? I'd appreciate your help, but let's hold off a bit with that until we switch the runtime and the Modeler to the new implementation of the configuration classes, as there may be more changes. Andrus
Re: Beta 2?
On 15/12/09 9:35 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: Cool thanks. So we are clear to go. I want to regenerate the schema docs. I'll try and get that in the next day or two. Also, while I think of it, we need to update the schema for 3.1 and the merging of the driver.xml. Andrus do you want to do it, or would you like me to? Ari -- --> Aristedes Maniatis GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
Re: Beta 2?
Cool thanks. So we are clear to go. On Dec 14, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote: Done. 2009/12/14 Andrey Razumovsky I would like to end undo-redo feature - will do before the weekend. Also I would like to see CAY-1334 fixed - not very critical, but still a nasty one. Will see in the end of the week unless someone beats me to it. I suggest we call our release RC1 instead because looks like there'no new features either in core or in modeler, and only documentation updates are planned for 3.0 final. The faster we release 3.0 final, the better 2009/12/14 Andrus Adamchik I guess the worst 3.0 bugs have been just fixed and I'd like to assemble B2 files and start the vote to get the fixes out ASAP. Anything else we want to include? If not I may try to build the release this weekend. Andrus -- Andrey -- Andrey
Re: Beta 2?
Done. 2009/12/14 Andrey Razumovsky > I would like to end undo-redo feature - will do before the weekend. Also I > would like to see CAY-1334 fixed - not very critical, but still a nasty one. > Will see in the end of the week unless someone beats me to it. > I suggest we call our release RC1 instead because looks like there'no new > features either in core or in modeler, and only documentation updates are > planned for 3.0 final. The faster we release 3.0 final, the better > > 2009/12/14 Andrus Adamchik > > I guess the worst 3.0 bugs have been just fixed and I'd like to assemble B2 >> files and start the vote to get the fixes out ASAP. Anything else we want to >> include? If not I may try to build the release this weekend. >> >> Andrus >> > > > > -- > Andrey > -- Andrey
Re: Beta 2?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Michael Gentry wrote: > >> We had a meeting this morning which included a discussion on Hibernate >> vs Cayenne (we = the team that is developing that politically >> sensitive application I mentioned and was trying to do some >> benchmarking). Several of the Hibernate developers, after I showed >> them Cayenne, thought Cayenne looked easier to learn/use (they LOVED >> the idea of the data context), but in the end chose to do the new >> project in Hibernate (the devil they know). A good portion of their >> thought process was that Cayenne 3 isn't officially released yet and >> that Cayenne 2 was too old. (No one uses "beta" code, it was argued.) > > I guess your team should consider that it has a very unique advantage with > Cayenne - a committer who can fix things if they are broken. They won't have > that with Hibernate ;-) I tried to point that out. :-) I even told them our mailing list was more friendly (at least from what I've heard -- I don't troll the Hibernate lists). It really was a matter of going with what they knew given sensitivity of the application (and the fact that if we botched it, we'd be in The Washington Post). At least we know better than to put a black box over the text in a PDF. :-) > Anyways, I guess we won't be able to fix that DataDomain snapshot cache > contention issue in 3.0, but hopefully we will in 3.1 FWIW, I ran our rather limited benchmark test again earlier and the numbers were MUCH better on Friday. The only thing I can guess is that after we ran the Hibernate test, something happened to slow the DB/network down for an extended period since nothing else changed. Cayenne was still a little slower (but livable) and grew over time (where Hibernate was fairly flat), but it was nothing like on Friday. Also, when I ran Hibernate and Cayenne sequentially instead of in parallel, Cayenne edged it out. >> While I'm on a soapbox ... I think it would be better if 3.1 included >> only a handful of features and could be put out 4-6 months after 3.0. >> Repeat for 3.2 ... That way it doesn't look like it is sitting still >> for to long (perception, I know). > > I am all for it. If 3.1 is just DI/configuration rework (and anything else > squeezed in while this rework is being done), I am personally totally fine > with it. > > Andrus mrg
Re: Beta 2?
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Michael Gentry wrote: We had a meeting this morning which included a discussion on Hibernate vs Cayenne (we = the team that is developing that politically sensitive application I mentioned and was trying to do some benchmarking). Several of the Hibernate developers, after I showed them Cayenne, thought Cayenne looked easier to learn/use (they LOVED the idea of the data context), but in the end chose to do the new project in Hibernate (the devil they know). A good portion of their thought process was that Cayenne 3 isn't officially released yet and that Cayenne 2 was too old. (No one uses "beta" code, it was argued.) I guess your team should consider that it has a very unique advantage with Cayenne - a committer who can fix things if they are broken. They won't have that with Hibernate ;-) Anyways, I guess we won't be able to fix that DataDomain snapshot cache contention issue in 3.0, but hopefully we will in 3.1 While I'm on a soapbox ... I think it would be better if 3.1 included only a handful of features and could be put out 4-6 months after 3.0. Repeat for 3.2 ... That way it doesn't look like it is sitting still for to long (perception, I know). I am all for it. If 3.1 is just DI/configuration rework (and anything else squeezed in while this rework is being done), I am personally totally fine with it. Andrus
Re: Beta 2?
Unless there is a compelling reason to have a B2, I'm in favor of Andrey's RC1 suggestion. I saw Olga had checked in some modeler changes to hopefully fix the enum problem, but I haven't done an update/build to test it yet. To me that was a big issue since it was supported in Cayenne 2. If that issue is fixed and there aren't major issues discovered, I want to get 3 out sooner than later. We had a meeting this morning which included a discussion on Hibernate vs Cayenne (we = the team that is developing that politically sensitive application I mentioned and was trying to do some benchmarking). Several of the Hibernate developers, after I showed them Cayenne, thought Cayenne looked easier to learn/use (they LOVED the idea of the data context), but in the end chose to do the new project in Hibernate (the devil they know). A good portion of their thought process was that Cayenne 3 isn't officially released yet and that Cayenne 2 was too old. (No one uses "beta" code, it was argued.) While I'm on a soapbox ... I think it would be better if 3.1 included only a handful of features and could be put out 4-6 months after 3.0. Repeat for 3.2 ... That way it doesn't look like it is sitting still for to long (perception, I know). Thanks! mrg On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote: > I would like to end undo-redo feature - will do before the weekend. Also I > would like to see CAY-1334 fixed - not very critical, but still a nasty one. > Will see in the end of the week unless someone beats me to it. > I suggest we call our release RC1 instead because looks like there'no new > features either in core or in modeler, and only documentation updates are > planned for 3.0 final. The faster we release 3.0 final, the better > > 2009/12/14 Andrus Adamchik > >> I guess the worst 3.0 bugs have been just fixed and I'd like to assemble B2 >> files and start the vote to get the fixes out ASAP. Anything else we want to >> include? If not I may try to build the release this weekend. >> >> Andrus >> > > > > -- > Andrey >
Re: Beta 2?
On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote: I would like to end undo-redo feature - will do before the weekend. Great. Also I would like to see CAY-1334 fixed - not very critical, but still a nasty one. Will see in the end of the week unless someone beats me to it. Yeah, would be nice to fix. I suggest we call our release RC1 instead because looks like there'no new features either in core or in modeler, and only documentation updates are planned for 3.0 final. The faster we release 3.0 final, the better +1 for RC1. I am itching to get it out as well. Need to keep some balance here though. 3.0 sitting in Beta/RC stage a little longer has an advantage of more people switching to it, and us getting the bug reports and fixing them before the final (and saving ourselves from possible embarrassment). Andrus
Re: Beta 2?
I would like to end undo-redo feature - will do before the weekend. Also I would like to see CAY-1334 fixed - not very critical, but still a nasty one. Will see in the end of the week unless someone beats me to it. I suggest we call our release RC1 instead because looks like there'no new features either in core or in modeler, and only documentation updates are planned for 3.0 final. The faster we release 3.0 final, the better 2009/12/14 Andrus Adamchik > I guess the worst 3.0 bugs have been just fixed and I'd like to assemble B2 > files and start the vote to get the fixes out ASAP. Anything else we want to > include? If not I may try to build the release this weekend. > > Andrus > -- Andrey
