Re: tomcat v6 integration game plan (longish)
David Jencks wrote: I certainly agree at least one web container should always be working :-). I think jetty6 is working with new specs we just have to rearrange things a little bit, I think Joe is working on that. Well, I did get things building again in the sandbox (BTW, thanks for fixing those versions that I missed David). You can now build the javaee5 sandbox successfully again. Jetty6 is mostly functional in the sandbox with some strange console/security problems (you don't need to sign-on to the console and you can't really "sign-off" as well as some spurious problems/stack traces on various console activities). I'm not sure if we should move it into trunk now if we want to ensure that we still have one container working while we do heart surgery on the other (ie. Tomcat). I also just agreed to help Paul with some of the web-module-builder which will probably mean that I move some of the work from the sandbox into trunk but I was hoping I could do that without moving all of Jetty6 given the goal to have a working container. Joe
Re: tomcat v6 integration game plan (longish)
On 11/30/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: > - I asked [EMAIL PROTECTED] about publishing their 6.0.2 beta jars in a > maven repo but got no response yet. Since some of their 6.0.1 alpha > jars were published in the snapshot repo I suspect they should be > willing to publish the beta jars. Are there any concerns with > publishing those jars in my personal repo at people.apache.org as an > interim solution? I don't like that but can't think of a better > approach. There are a couple places where we have put the jars right in the module as a file system repository. See the dojo app for one. I think that might be a less troublesome solution: I'd consult jason dillon for his opinion. I'm familiar with the dojo app but my concern with taking that approach is that unlike dojo the tomcat jars are needed in several different modules/configs/assemblies. But when it comes to maven Jason is always yanking rabbits out of a hat so he can probably recommend a solution. > - I'm proposing that we introduce a new jee5 spec config and point > rmi-naming at it instead of the j2ee 1.4 spec config. I'm hopeful > that the jetty assemblies will continue to work after making that > change but cannot guarantee. If that causes you concerns then I'm > open to an alternate approach. Thinking about this more I think we should perhaps rename the specs configs "specs" without the j2ee-1.4 stuff in the name and start putting the new specs into it. I'm also starting to think that keeping jetty5 around in 2.0 will just slow us down even if it isn't causing any problems. OK I like that solution better too. It would be great if we could avoid having rmi-naming depend on the specs module :-/ agreed. Best wishes, Paul
Re: tomcat v6 integration game plan (longish)
On Nov 30, 2006, at 9:39 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote: --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thinking about this more I think we should perhaps rename the specs configs "specs" without the j2ee-1.4 stuff in the name and start putting the new specs into it. I'm also starting to think that keeping jetty5 around in 2.0 will just slow us down even if it isn't Just a fleeting idea.. Could we possibly use the specs-configs approach for the new things (JEE 1.5) and use the old way of doing things for 1.4 stuff. I know it needs more thought We should have at least one web container working all the time. I certainly agree at least one web container should always be working :-). I think jetty6 is working with new specs we just have to rearrange things a little bit, I think Joe is working on that. I don't understand how we could have a hybrid approach in one branch. If we left the 1.4 spec jars in the rmi-naming config and also gave it a parent config of the combined set of new jee5 specs and unconverted j2ee 1.4 specs I think the copies from the parent config would always be used. I suspect I'm not understanding what you are proposing :-) thanks david jencks Thanks Anita __ __ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: tomcat v6 integration game plan (longish)
On 11/30/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Paul McMahan wrote: > - I notice that the servlet 2.5 spec was copied into specs/trunk from > tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk. Any concerns with taking the same approach for > the JSP 2.1 and EL specs? Were they copied or typed in? I thought Bill Dudney typed them in or may have used the TC specs but made some changes. I hate to copy them in, but for the sake of consistency, perhaps you can/should do that. Oh yeah I had forgotten about the work Bill did on GERONIMO-1686. That work was committed to specs/branches/jee5_exp. But the servlet 2.5 stuff in specs/trunk/geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec was copied from tc6: bash-3.1$ svn log src/main/java/javax/servlet/ [snip] r417823 | gregw | 2006-06-28 13:28:46 -0400 (Wed, 28 Jun 2006) | 1 line refactored from tc layout to g layout r417806 | gregw | 2006-06-28 12:10:56 -0400 (Wed, 28 Jun 2006) | 1 line interim commit before restructure to allow history to be retained r397540 | remm | 2006-04-27 09:33:39 -0400 (Thu, 27 Apr 2006) | 1 line - Remove JSP related resources. [snip] Following the comments in GERONIMO-1686 it looks like the tc6 copy was preferred because of javadoc. Since there are no JSP 2.1 or EL specs already in specs/branches/jee5_exp I was just planning to also copy them from tc6. That's assuming that we actually *need* a copy in geronimo/specs. See below. There was talk of Grand Central Project here at Apache, which would provide for a one-stop-shop for specs to prevent from copying. Anybody hear of any movement on that? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GrandCentralProposal This seems like the best idea for Apache's projects. I agree this is a good idea and would help avoid redundant efforts. In the short term I'm wondering why we need a copy of specs in geronimo/specs/trunk if they're already available in a maven repo? I've been operating under the assumption there's some good reason for maintaining a separate copy in Geronimo, probably copyright related. But if that's not the case it would be easier to use what I found at: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/javax/servlet/servlet-api/2.5/ http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/javax/servlet/jsp/jsp-api/2.1/ I don't know who published those artifacts or if all the correct legal bits are in place. Anyone care to enlighten me as to whether or not Geronimo really needs its own copy of the specs, and if not then how to determine if artifacts such as the above are ok from a legal/copyright perspective? This is where the Grand Central Project would be a big help... Best wishes, Paul
Re: tomcat v6 integration game plan (longish)
--- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thinking about this more I think we should perhaps rename the specs > configs "specs" without the j2ee-1.4 stuff in the name and start > putting the new specs into it. I'm also starting to think that > keeping jetty5 around in 2.0 will just slow us down even if it isn't > Just a fleeting idea.. Could we possibly use the specs-configs approach for the new things (JEE 1.5) and use the old way of doing things for 1.4 stuff. I know it needs more thought We should have at least one web container working all the time. Thanks Anita Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: tomcat v6 integration game plan (longish)
On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: I created a wiki page that outlines the game plan for integrating tomcat v6 into Geronimo 2.0 : http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Tomcat+v6+game+plan For those of you whose work in Geronimo 2.0 depends in some way on Tomcat v6 I hope this information will give you a chance to provide feedback, adjust your plans if necessary, and even grab a hammer and pitch in if you like ;-) Also there are some specific items in the plan that I wanted to collect feedback on from the dev community at large : - I notice that the servlet 2.5 spec was copied into specs/trunk from tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk. Any concerns with taking the same approach for the JSP 2.1 and EL specs? - I asked [EMAIL PROTECTED] about publishing their 6.0.2 beta jars in a maven repo but got no response yet. Since some of their 6.0.1 alpha jars were published in the snapshot repo I suspect they should be willing to publish the beta jars. Are there any concerns with publishing those jars in my personal repo at people.apache.org as an interim solution? I don't like that but can't think of a better approach. There are a couple places where we have put the jars right in the module as a file system repository. See the dojo app for one. I think that might be a less troublesome solution: I'd consult jason dillon for his opinion. - There will be a period of time where the tomcat v5 runtime has been replaced with tomcat v6 but the builders have not been updated for servlet 2.5 yet. This seemed like a reasonable approach to support a 12/23 geronimo 2.0 milestone build. I'm hoping this should work because AFAIK tomcat v6 is backwards compatible. But there may be a period of time where webapp deployment is broken or behaves strangely. - I'm proposing that we introduce a new jee5 spec config and point rmi-naming at it instead of the j2ee 1.4 spec config. I'm hopeful that the jetty assemblies will continue to work after making that change but cannot guarantee. If that causes you concerns then I'm open to an alternate approach. Thinking about this more I think we should perhaps rename the specs configs "specs" without the j2ee-1.4 stuff in the name and start putting the new specs into it. I'm also starting to think that keeping jetty5 around in 2.0 will just slow us down even if it isn't causing any problems. It would be great if we could avoid having rmi-naming depend on the specs module :-/ thanks david jencks Best wishes, Paul
Re: tomcat v6 integration game plan (longish)
Paul McMahan wrote: > - I notice that the servlet 2.5 spec was copied into specs/trunk from > tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk. Any concerns with taking the same approach for > the JSP 2.1 and EL specs? Were they copied or typed in? I thought Bill Dudney typed them in or may have used the TC specs but made some changes. I hate to copy them in, but for the sake of consistency, perhaps you can/should do that. There was talk of Grand Central Project here at Apache, which would provide for a one-stop-shop for specs to prevent from copying. Anybody hear of any movement on that? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GrandCentralProposal This seems like the best idea for Apache's projects. > > - I asked [EMAIL PROTECTED] about publishing their 6.0.2 beta jars in a > maven repo but got no response yet. Since some of their 6.0.1 alpha > jars were published in the snapshot repo I suspect they should be > willing to publish the beta jars. Are there any concerns with > publishing those jars in my personal repo at people.apache.org as an > interim solution? I don't like that but can't think of a better > approach. > This has been done numerous times before ;-) You could also publish a "G" version of them as a temporary measure..that also has been done before. > - I'm proposing that we introduce a new jee5 spec config and point > rmi-naming at it instead of the j2ee 1.4 spec config. I'm hopeful > that the jetty assemblies will continue to work after making that > change but cannot guarantee. If that causes you concerns then I'm > open to an alternate approach. > I agree with your approach. Jeff > > Best wishes, > Paul
