[jboss-dev] AS5.x, AS6 roadmaps

[Carlo de Wolf]

Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
> Regarding EAP5, my suggestion is to stick with Branch_5_0 and continue 
> work there. If at some point we *have* to consider non-backwards 
> compatible changes, then we can branch off Branch_5_1 from the latest 
> Branch_5_0. Or even stay with Branch_5_0 if the changes are not 
> significant.
>
> What are the non-backward compatible changes anyway? That's the real 
> question to ask. If we are certain of those we could Branch_5_1 now. 
> The key is that we don't want to deviate much from 5.0.0.GA. Otherwise 
> all the testing and stabilization we have done is lost.
>
> About trunk, I think we should point to AS6 Alpha. To try 
> experimenting with a different Bootstrap+ProfileService type of setup 
> either create another working branch or an external project (JBoss 
> Reloaded or whatever) and merge back when done.
The current codebase contains dead and petrified code. Or I would rather 
say code gems. Right now we keep lugging this stuff around. If we can 
cleanly separate it from trunk we got true diamonds, which we test once 
and use forever.
By doing so we get the stable box of Lego blocks we want to keep around 
(I still have my Lego from childhood :-) ). Some blocks wouldn't even 
need any change, so there you'll find the stability.

For EAP5 already some issues have been identified which are not 
backwards compatible:
- pruning of 'legacy' EJB3 functions (like ejb3-timerservice)
- xsd cleanup
I don't mind putting them into Branch_5_0, but the important thing is 
that I don't want to be hampered by the backwards compatibility rule. So 
do we get 'carte blanche'?

Names are important. Giving something the correct name is covering half 
the expectancy and I say JBoss Reloaded *is* AS 6. If we rename trunk to 
AS 6 Alpha, we can't release something from there that remotely looks 
like AS 6. It looks (and is) AS 5 with some refactoring in progress.
> I think the key is to keep trunk relatively usable and stable. If we 
> start breaking things here and there we'll repeat the same mistakes we 
> did with AS5; the whole thing will soon get out of control.
I agree, but it means trunk can't move fast enough. So I would say keep 
the AS 5.1 name and let's start work on JBoss Reloaded. We can do stable 
releases of trunk and we can then do preview releases of Reloaded.

Carlo
>
> Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>> Tied to this is what we're going to do with the branches.
>>
>> We need a branch to get to EAP 5 which will contain fixes which are 
>> not backwards compatible with AS 5.0 GA, by definition this rules out 
>> Branch_5_0. For community purposes we should only have to use trunk, 
>> so effectively Branch_5_0 is a dead branch unless we need to do a 
>> 5.0.1. So we might as well startup the EAP branch right away.
>>
>> In AS trunk we can pursue the plan outlined below by Scott. Meanwhile 
>> I would say we create an AS 6 project in which we build 6 as we 
>> envisioned it in the first place: JBoss Bootstrap (MC, VDF etc) + 
>> JBoss Profile Service. For the first iteration we can hardcode one 
>> profile: JavaEE 6 until the Profile Service is up and running. That 
>> means any components coming free out of the AS 5 (/trunk) refactoring 
>> can immediately be incorporated into AS 6. At some point the 
>> refactoring of AS 5 will make it look almost exactly as AS 6 or AS 6 
>> will become fully operational. At which we deprecate AS 5 (/trunk).
>>
>> Carlo
>>
>> Scott Stark wrote:
>>> We need to finalize the 3 month road map for AS5.x and its relation 
>>> to AS6. The current discussions have been around embedded and EE6 
>>> type profiles and that we should focus on incorporating AS6 elements 
>>> in the next AS5.x release that improve the following areas:
>>>
>>> * Unit Test Capabilities.  The ability to embed JBoss inside unit 
>>> tests so that they can be run with no special plugins within an IDE, 
>>> vanilla maven testsuite, vanilla ant testsuite.
>>> * Maven JBoss Plugin.  You can define a configuration or override 
>>> the default.  Basically making it nice and easy to use for maven 
>>> people.
>>> * Bundling of embedded jopr for the management console
>>> * Get on-demand working for as many services as possible
>>> * Optimize boot time (JBoss 5 boots much slower than JBoss 4.2)
>>> * Deprecate and prune components and move them to a deprecated 
>>> folder so that they don't boot up with default config. (Web Console, 
>>> JMX-Console, Scheduler, EJB 2.x)
>>> * Clean up service dependencies so its easier to add/remove 
>>> components and subsystems.  This is related to on-demand as well.
>>> * Define proper packaging of services so that dependencies and 
>>> isolation of implementation details exist.
>>> * Profile service supporting subprofiles and proper repository 
>>> abstraction to allow for simple requirements descriptions of 
>>> services in a profile driving the post MC bootstrap loading of 
>>> services.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-development mailing list
>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development