Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
Furthermore I want to let you know that the new fastfail stuff need
changes to configuration files and would no allow conditions (ii) and
(iv), so using your numbering scheme would not be suitable for 2.4.
My point is (without integralism) to be able to get 2.4, and have my
production system run doing the same things as before with no or at
least little effort (no or very little changes to configuration) and
then, when I'm confortable, start exploiting the new features by
changing the configuration files. By little effort I mean also the
ability to easily rollback if weird things happen. And you know that
going from 2.2 to 2.3 was not simple at all!
*If* those things turn out to be impossible, then obviously we will
follow your and Norman's roadmap :-) . But *if* it is feasible, as also
Noel thinks, this is my choice.
As a note, the new fastfail stuff needs also changes to the
assembly.xml, so even if the config.xml could be kept compatible this
would not be the same for assembly.xml.
This is not to say that you don't have to follow that roadmap (as I said
I'm happy if you produce an interim release and I don't have to put my
efforts for this to happen), but to give you more information on what
you can expect to achieve.
Stefano
--
PS: is weird how having the componet assembly in xml instead of
hardcoded in a file is creating incompatibility issues that we wouldn't
care of otherwise. We should keep this in mind when/if we'll ever move
to another container.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
