I leave this up to you guys. I would include 2.6 not 2.5 in AS 5, as we
will *NOT* be able to upgrade AS 5 to 2.6 ever. But it's not my call. As
a matter of fact, I don't mind *not* having to rush a 2.6 GA out the door...
So 2.5 then huh ?
Brian Stansberry wrote:
I am fine with 2.5 unless in your opinion 2.6 includes some major bug
fixes that really need to be in AS 5.0.0. My assumption has always
been that AS 5 would be targeted toward JGroups 2.5, with 2.6
integrated if it came out far enough in advance of the AS CR1 that we
could properly test it. Only reason for interest in 2.6 is just the
normal desire to pick up any bug fixes or perf improvements that come
along.
Seems we're locking down the libraries for beta3 instead of CR1. That
doesn't change the above.
AIUI, the main reason for pushing for 2.6 was the API for the combined
flush for connect+ multiple state transfers we discussed yesterday.
That doesn't seem like something that can be high impact in AS 5.0.0.
I don't see how the different, completely unrelated services that do
state transfer can coordinate their state transfers, at least not
without a major effort that there's no bandwidth for. So, that leaves
saving 1 flush cycle when the channel shared by all the services
connects. That would be nice, but IMHO not a huge thing worth
disrupting your road map to get in.
Bela Ban wrote:
> Let me know as soon as possible which version of JGroups you want in
> AS 5. If you want to stick with 2.5, there is no reason for us to
> scramble releasing 2.6 and pushing 50% of the features into 2.7...
> Brian ? Dimitris ?
>
> Bela Ban
> Lead JGroups / Clustering Team
> JBoss - a division of Red Hat
>
--
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups / Clustering Team
JBoss - a division of Red Hat