My vote would be to include the jars in the all config
and have example configuration in docs/examples/jts
The testsuite should include a seperate group of tests
for booting a couple of servers with the example config
(see the clustering tests) to make sure it works.
That group of tests could be gradually expanded to run
other tests (e.g. the smoke tests) and once we
are happy it is all working, the jts config would
then be a candidate for inclusion in the all config
(its timing could be pre or post JBoss5 final
but before EAP).
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 11:38 +0100, Jonathan Halliday wrote:
Hello all
Arguably one for the AS list, but in light of potential
impact on other projects I think it needs wider discussion,
so hello dev list...
I'm pleased to say that we will shortly be announcing the
change of licence terms for the JTS (distributed,
interoperable transactions between e.g. EJB containers) and
XTS (transactions for Web Services) parts of JBossTS from
GPL/Dual to LGPL.
The current JBossAS release bundles our JTA ('local only'
transactions), which is already LGPL. The JTS and XTS
options are available to the community as additional
downloads that can be integrated into AS 4.x The EAP 4.x
releases include support for JTA only. We have promised EAP
5.x will include JTS also, and probably at least some parts
of XTS.
Now that it's legally feasible to do so, does the AS dev
community wish to include either JTS or XTS with the AS 5.x
releases, in order to provide users with these increased
capabilities?
I see the advantages as: The AS will have more functionality
out of the box and can be pulled into the EAP with fewer
changes. For both cases it would otherwise be necessary to
retrofit the additional transactions pieces and retest the
server.
I see the disadvantages as: Changing something as core as
the transactions engine between CR and GA may raise issues
that further delay the release. It adds additional
complexity and footprint for something not all users need.
Hybrid solutions are available, such as sticking with the
JTA for the 'default' config and putting the JTS into the
'all' config. These further muddy the waters and complicate
the testing, although I rather like it from a point of view
of offering the most appropriate technical solution for
users with different needs.
There may be a degree of tension here between the AS
(community) and EAP (product). Putting the JTS into the AS
reduces the productisation work at the cost of more
engineering effort in the AS for example.
I'm wearing my community developer hat today: JBossAS and
JBossTS are open source projects, it's up to the core
developers to discuss the engineering tradeoffs and make the
call on this. That may of course be unduly idealist:
commercial realities dictate that EAP product management
have at least some influence on the final decision :-)
Does anyone have strong opinions one way or the other on this?
Regards
Jonathan Halliday
JBossTS dev team lead.
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Adrian Brock
Chief Scientist
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx