Re: Split out transaction
On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:14 PM, David Blevins wrote: I monitor a bunch of lists and it looks like the Geronimo transaction library is getting pretty popular. Looks like Ofbiz, ODE, and Tuscany are now using it. That's in addition to ServiceMix, ActiveMQ, and of course OpenEJB. Interesting thing is that their all using it standalone via the Jencks.org stuff. What is stopping us from splitting this out? I say we just leave the gbeans where they are, rename the module to geronimo-transaction-gbeans, then move the rest of the code out, make a new pom and mark any deps still required with 'provided'. Then we cut a release of it that both 1.2beta and 2.0m1 can use Beyond your note, what's motivating us to split it out? ;-) That not enough? ;-) Certainly makes sense to provide a module which is not dependent on GBeans (one day we'll get rid of them altogether...). That seems to be the important part of any splitting. This can occur with or without moving transactions to be separately releasable... I certainly wouldn't advocate doing anything like this so close to a release or two... See my response to Matt. -David
Re: Split out transaction
On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:14 PM, David Blevins wrote: I monitor a bunch of lists and it looks like the Geronimo transaction library is getting pretty popular. Looks like Ofbiz, ODE, and Tuscany are now using it. That's in addition to ServiceMix, ActiveMQ, and of course OpenEJB. Interesting thing is that their all using it standalone via the Jencks.org stuff. What is stopping us from splitting this out? I say we just leave the gbeans where they are, rename the module to geronimo-transaction-gbeans, then move the rest of the code out, make a new pom and mark any deps still required with 'provided'. Then we cut a release of it that both 1.2beta and 2.0m1 can use Beyond your note, what's motivating us to split it out? ;-) Certainly makes sense to provide a module which is not dependent on GBeans (one day we'll get rid of them altogether...). That seems to be the important part of any splitting. This can occur with or without moving transactions to be separately releasable... I certainly wouldn't advocate doing anything like this so close to a release or two... --kevan
Re: Split out transaction
On Dec 12, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: I'm ok for splitting it out. I'm not sure today is the best timing. My experience is the simple things like this as your releasing software is the thing that goes belly up and causes great pain. We'll have to peel it out, test it, vote on it, etc. I'd prefer to do this after we get 1.2-beta and 2.0-m1 out the door. Sure. We can start creating the separate modules now, but we can leave 1.2-beta and 2.0-m1 using their own copies. On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:14 PM, David Blevins wrote: I monitor a bunch of lists and it looks like the Geronimo transaction library is getting pretty popular. Looks like Ofbiz, ODE, and Tuscany are now using it. That's in addition to ServiceMix, ActiveMQ, and of course OpenEJB. Interesting thing is that their all using it standalone via the Jencks.org stuff. What is stopping us from splitting this out? I say we just leave the gbeans where they are, rename the module to geronimo-transaction-gbeans, then move the rest of the code out, make a new pom and mark any deps still required with 'provided'. Are you proposing: geronimo/server/[trunk | branches/1.2] /modules/geronimo- transaction-gbeans for the server and branches and geronimo/modules/geronimo-transaction/trunk/ /tags/ /branches/ for the externalized transaction and connector modules? Right. I could take or leave the 'modules' prefix, but it's kind of nice. So for after 2.0-m1 and 1.2-beta1 we would move it out and version it as 2.0-SNAPSHOT and release as -2.0. We can move out now and mark them 2.0-SNAPSHOT. After 2.0-m1 and 1.2- beta1 we can work on getting those codelines to use the independently versioned copies and when that works, we release them as 2.0. This kind of implies that the other modules like tomcat, jetty, activemq, etc should be renamed with -gbean suffixes to be consistent. The activemq one maybe as I think that one really does only have gbeans in it, but the rest have a lot more integration code. We can use any suffix we like really, we just need an artifactId different than geronimo-transaction. In fact we maybe just want to throw the leftover gbeans into another module, like geronimo-core. But we can decide that later. -David
Re: Split out transaction
I'm ok for splitting it out. I'm not sure today is the best timing. My experience is the simple things like this as your releasing software is the thing that goes belly up and causes great pain. We'll have to peel it out, test it, vote on it, etc. I'd prefer to do this after we get 1.2-beta and 2.0-m1 out the door. On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:14 PM, David Blevins wrote: I monitor a bunch of lists and it looks like the Geronimo transaction library is getting pretty popular. Looks like Ofbiz, ODE, and Tuscany are now using it. That's in addition to ServiceMix, ActiveMQ, and of course OpenEJB. Interesting thing is that their all using it standalone via the Jencks.org stuff. What is stopping us from splitting this out? I say we just leave the gbeans where they are, rename the module to geronimo-transaction-gbeans, then move the rest of the code out, make a new pom and mark any deps still required with 'provided'. Are you proposing: geronimo/server/[trunk | branches/1.2] /modules/geronimo-transaction- gbeans for the server and branches and geronimo/modules/geronimo-transaction/trunk/ /tags/ /branches/ for the externalized transaction and connector modules? So for after 2.0-m1 and 1.2-beta1 we would move it out and version it as 2.0-SNAPSHOT and release as -2.0. This kind of implies that the other modules like tomcat, jetty, activemq, etc should be renamed with -gbean suffixes to be consistent. Then we cut a release of it that both 1.2beta and 2.0m1 can use Thoughts? -David Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
