It's worth pointing out that project Blacktie depends on JTS
capability. Although Blacktie is further out (well, I hope we release
AS 5 before Blacktie!) it's something to consider from a requirements
perspective.
Mark.
On 26 Jun 2008, at 11:38, 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.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland)
_______________________________________________
jboss-development mailing list
jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
----
Mark Little
mlittle(a)redhat.com
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).