Jencks 2.0?

[Dain Sundstrom]

I'd like to propose we create a 2.0 branch based on the g11 branch I  
created yesterday.  For 2.0, I'd like to focus on the following:

Upgrading to Geronimo 1.1+ and switch to m1 (as in the g11 branch)
Cleaning up FactoryBeans
    Decide on a common way to add default values
    Remove code that searches the application context except for well  
documented exceptions (e.g., MDP)
Repackage the code to split out the transaction, jca, work manager  
and pooling code.
Normalize the defaults, property names, and xbean-spring tags.
Document :)

The reason for the 2.0 declaration is cleaning up the factory beans,  
repacking and normalizing the properties all will break any existing  
spring.xml files.

What do you think?

-dain



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[Dmitriy Kopylenko]

+1 for Jencks 2.x

Dmitriy.

Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I'd like to propose we create a 2.0 branch based on the g11 branch I
> created yesterday.  For 2.0, I'd like to focus on the following:
>
> Upgrading to Geronimo 1.1+ and switch to m1 (as in the g11 branch)
> Cleaning up FactoryBeans
>    Decide on a common way to add default values
>    Remove code that searches the application context except for well
> documented exceptions (e.g., MDP)
> Repackage the code to split out the transaction, jca, work manager and
> pooling code.
> Normalize the defaults, property names, and xbean-spring tags.
> Document :)
>
> The reason for the 2.0 declaration is cleaning up the factory beans,
> repacking and normalizing the properties all will break any existing
> spring.xml files.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -dain
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[Dain Sundstrom]

It looks like Geronimo will accept my branch that removes the  
TransactionContextManager.  Assuming the do take the code, I propose  
we make the notcm branch of jencks be the starting point for our 2.0  
work.  The 2.0 branch already has a m2 build,  clean up factory  
beans, more consistent property names, and some documentation as  
noted below.  I think we still need to:

* Merge James' simplified message driven pojo config from trunk (so  
cool)
* Repackage/organize and remove unused code
* Verify connection tracking works correctly
* Document

What do you think of the plan?  Did I miss anything?  Do you want to  
help?

I think we can easily get a few betas out while Geronimo works on  
actually releasing the 1.2 code which contains the notcm changes.

-dain

On Jul 18, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I'd like to propose we create a 2.0 branch based on the g11 branch  
> I created yesterday.  For 2.0, I'd like to focus on the following:
>
> Upgrading to Geronimo 1.1+ and switch to m1 (as in the g11 branch)
> Cleaning up FactoryBeans
>    Decide on a common way to add default values
>    Remove code that searches the application context except for  
> well documented exceptions (e.g., MDP)
> Repackage the code to split out the transaction, jca, work manager  
> and pooling code.
> Normalize the defaults, property names, and xbean-spring tags.
> Document :)
>
> The reason for the 2.0 declaration is cleaning up the factory  
> beans, repacking and normalizing the properties all will break any  
> existing spring.xml files.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -dain
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[James.Strachan]

+1 - though I'd be happier to say lets cut a release of what we have
right now in trunk (and make a branch in case we need to do any
emergency bug fixes) then lets make trunk the 2.0 codebase since thats
where most of us are going to be working.

i.e. I'm lazy so lets do the simplest thing that could possibly work :)


On 8/6/06, Dain Sundstrom <dain@...> wrote:

> It looks like Geronimo will accept my branch that removes the
> TransactionContextManager.  Assuming the do take the code, I propose
> we make the notcm branch of jencks be the starting point for our 2.0
> work.  The 2.0 branch already has a m2 build,  clean up factory
> beans, more consistent property names, and some documentation as
> noted below.  I think we still need to:
>
> * Merge James' simplified message driven pojo config from trunk (so
> cool)
> * Repackage/organize and remove unused code
> * Verify connection tracking works correctly
> * Document
>
> What do you think of the plan?  Did I miss anything?  Do you want to
> help?
>
> I think we can easily get a few betas out while Geronimo works on
> actually releasing the 1.2 code which contains the notcm changes.
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 18, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose we create a 2.0 branch based on the g11 branch
> > I created yesterday.  For 2.0, I'd like to focus on the following:
> >
> > Upgrading to Geronimo 1.1+ and switch to m1 (as in the g11 branch)
> > Cleaning up FactoryBeans
> >    Decide on a common way to add default values
> >    Remove code that searches the application context except for
> > well documented exceptions (e.g., MDP)
> > Repackage the code to split out the transaction, jca, work manager
> > and pooling code.
> > Normalize the defaults, property names, and xbean-spring tags.
> > Document :)
> >
> > The reason for the 2.0 declaration is cleaning up the factory
> > beans, repacking and normalizing the properties all will break any
> > existing spring.xml files.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > -dain
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
> >
> >    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>

--

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[gnodet]

+1

On 8/6/06, Dain Sundstrom <dain@...> wrote:

It looks like Geronimo will accept my branch that removes the
TransactionContextManager.  Assuming the do take the code, I propose
we make the notcm branch of jencks be the starting point for our 2.0
work.  The 2.0 branch already has a m2 build,  clean up factory
beans, more consistent property names, and some documentation as
noted below.  I think we still need to:

* Merge James' simplified message driven pojo config from trunk (so
cool)
* Repackage/organize and remove unused code
* Verify connection tracking works correctly
* Document

What do you think of the plan?  Did I miss anything?  Do you want to
help?

I think we can easily get a few betas out while Geronimo works on
actually releasing the 1.2 code which contains the notcm changes.

-dain

On Jul 18, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I'd like to propose we create a 2.0 branch based on the g11 branch
> I created yesterday.  For 2.0, I'd like to focus on the following:
>
> Upgrading to Geronimo 1.1+ and switch to m1 (as in the g11 branch)
> Cleaning up FactoryBeans
>    Decide on a common way to add default values
>    Remove code that searches the application context except for
> well documented exceptions (e.g., MDP)
> Repackage the code to split out the transaction, jca, work manager
> and pooling code.
> Normalize the defaults, property names, and xbean-spring tags.

> Document :)
>
> The reason for the 2.0 declaration is cleaning up the factory
> beans, repacking and normalizing the properties all will break any
> existing spring.xml files.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -dain
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

[Dain Sundstrom]

That all sounds good to me.

-dain

On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:11 AM, James Strachan wrote:

> +1 - though I'd be happier to say lets cut a release of what we have
> right now in trunk (and make a branch in case we need to do any
> emergency bug fixes) then lets make trunk the 2.0 codebase since thats
> where most of us are going to be working.
>
> i.e. I'm lazy so lets do the simplest thing that could possibly  
> work :)
>
>
> On 8/6/06, Dain Sundstrom <dain@...> wrote:
>> It looks like Geronimo will accept my branch that removes the
>> TransactionContextManager.  Assuming the do take the code, I propose
>> we make the notcm branch of jencks be the starting point for our 2.0
>> work.  The 2.0 branch already has a m2 build,  clean up factory
>> beans, more consistent property names, and some documentation as
>> noted below.  I think we still need to:
>>
>> * Merge James' simplified message driven pojo config from trunk (so
>> cool)
>> * Repackage/organize and remove unused code
>> * Verify connection tracking works correctly
>> * Document
>>
>> What do you think of the plan?  Did I miss anything?  Do you want to
>> help?
>>
>> I think we can easily get a few betas out while Geronimo works on
>> actually releasing the 1.2 code which contains the notcm changes.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>> > I'd like to propose we create a 2.0 branch based on the g11 branch
>> > I created yesterday.  For 2.0, I'd like to focus on the following:
>> >
>> > Upgrading to Geronimo 1.1+ and switch to m1 (as in the g11 branch)
>> > Cleaning up FactoryBeans
>> >    Decide on a common way to add default values
>> >    Remove code that searches the application context except for
>> > well documented exceptions (e.g., MDP)
>> > Repackage the code to split out the transaction, jca, work manager
>> > and pooling code.
>> > Normalize the defaults, property names, and xbean-spring tags.
>> > Document :)
>> >
>> > The reason for the 2.0 declaration is cleaning up the factory
>> > beans, repacking and normalizing the properties all will break any
>> > existing spring.xml files.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > -dain
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>> >
>> >    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>>
>>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email