We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a good idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way to share most of the jars/configuration. In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate download. Andy Taylor wrote: > As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a > technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to be > created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use for now > which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and there is something > concrete and working. > > What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll > definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be called > messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it would be good to > also demonstrate clustering which would mean a copy of all, say > messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a minimal set of services > maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. > > I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles to add > so I'd like to hear peoples views! > > Andy Taylor Core Developer > JBoss Messaging > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

This is an other option, however, it has other implications in how this get included. You'll have to import 2 different version of the same component (and possibly other dependencies). Not sure how our existing build system would support this. Jason T. Greene wrote: > Part of the problem is that EAP is planning on including a JBM2 > profile / option. IMO it would be very weird to ship something in EAP > but not in AS. Besides creating a profile, another option we have is > to include JBM2 with an install script in docs/examples. Then someone > could switch any AS profile to JBM2. > > Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >> We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a good >> idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way to share >> most of the jars/configuration. >> >> In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate download. >> >> Andy Taylor wrote: >>> As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a >>> technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to be >>> created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use for now >>> which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and there is >>> something concrete and working. >>> >>> What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll >>> definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be called >>> messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it would be good to >>> also demonstrate clustering which would mean a copy of all, say >>> messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a minimal set of >>> services maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. >>> >>> I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles to add >>> so I'd like to hear peoples views! >>> >>> Andy Taylor Core Developer >>> JBoss Messaging >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jboss-development mailing list >>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > >

Jesper has already developed JCA resource adapter for JBM 2.0, Is there anything apart from that we would need? Jason T. Greene wrote: > Yeah thats a good point. Andy how are you guys planning on handling AS > components which are developed agains the JBM 1.4 API being compatible > with the JBM2 API. Were you going to add some kind of compatibility > layer? > > Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >> This is an other option, however, it has other implications in how >> this get included. You'll have to import 2 different version of the >> same component (and possibly other dependencies). >> >> Not sure how our existing build system would support this. >> >> Jason T. Greene wrote: >>> Part of the problem is that EAP is planning on including a JBM2 >>> profile / option. IMO it would be very weird to ship something in >>> EAP but not in AS. Besides creating a profile, another option we >>> have is to include JBM2 with an install script in docs/examples. >>> Then someone could switch any AS profile to JBM2. >>> >>> Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >>>> We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a good >>>> idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way to share >>>> most of the jars/configuration. >>>> >>>> In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate download. >>>> >>>> Andy Taylor wrote: >>>>> As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a >>>>> technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to be >>>>> created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use for now >>>>> which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and there is >>>>> something concrete and working. >>>>> >>>>> What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll >>>>> definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be called >>>>> messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it would be good >>>>> to also demonstrate clustering which would mean a copy of all, say >>>>> messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a minimal set of >>>>> services maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. >>>>> >>>>> I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles to >>>>> add so I'd like to hear peoples views! >>>>> >>>>> Andy Taylor Core Developer >>>>> JBoss Messaging >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

Another option would be to use the (EJB 3) package installer. This removes the old artifacts and inserts new ones into 'default' and 'all' configuration (and client/common libraries). This would make it a separate download and thus eliminate any problems with the distribution size of AS. It also won't effect the build system. As for the 'will it work' question, that's a matter of testing. But I share the concern about dependency conflicts. What we need isn't just a package installer, but a package manager (a-la yum / aptitude). Then you can state in your Hudson configuration which packages you want and do test runs on it. All underlying dependencies would at least be enforced and possibly upgraded. We could then even ship an 'empty' AS with only the package manager (e.g. JBoss Reloaded). EAP will then become a 'random' assortment of packages which pass all release criteria. Note that the 'production' profile is beyond scope for the community release. All said and done, the most easy solution is to bring JBM2 into the regular build process a.s.a.p. and see how it behaves, because that would provide some knowledge to answer your question: "would it be stable and TCK compliant enough that it doesn't end up delaying GA?" Then the question on top becomes: when do we truly need it? Carlo Jason T. Greene wrote: > Well, as an example, we have multiple server dirs, but only one > client dir, and everything in there is part of the same classloader. > So, will an app writen against the 1.4 API work with the 2.0 API jar? > > Is there any client specific code in 1.4 and 2.0 that shares the same > packages (if so that will be a conflict)? > > Is the MDB implementation in EJB3 compatible with both 1.4 and 2.0? > > Do the dependency sets conflict between 1.4 and 2.0 (i.e. different > jgroups requirements etc)? > > Is the JMX API in 2.0 BC with 1.4? > > Andy Taylor wrote: >> Jesper has already developed JCA resource adapter for JBM 2.0, Is >> there anything apart from that we would need? >> >> Jason T. Greene wrote: >>> Yeah thats a good point. Andy how are you guys planning on handling >>> AS components which are developed agains the JBM 1.4 API being >>> compatible with the JBM2 API. Were you going to add some kind of >>> compatibility layer? >>> >>> Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >>>> This is an other option, however, it has other implications in how >>>> this get included. You'll have to import 2 different version of >>>> the same component (and possibly other dependencies). >>>> >>>> Not sure how our existing build system would support this. >>>> >>>> Jason T. Greene wrote: >>>>> Part of the problem is that EAP is planning on including a JBM2 >>>>> profile / option. IMO it would be very weird to ship something in >>>>> EAP but not in AS. Besides creating a profile, another option we >>>>> have is to include JBM2 with an install script in docs/examples. >>>>> Then someone could switch any AS profile to JBM2. >>>>> >>>>> Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >>>>>> We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a >>>>>> good idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way >>>>>> to share most of the jars/configuration. >>>>>> >>>>>> In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate >>>>>> download. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy Taylor wrote: >>>>>>> As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a >>>>>>> technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to >>>>>>> be created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use >>>>>>> for now which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and >>>>>>> there is something concrete and working. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll >>>>>>> definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be >>>>>>> called messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it >>>>>>> would be good to also demonstrate clustering which would mean a >>>>>>> copy of all, say messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a >>>>>>> minimal set of services maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles >>>>>>> to add so I'd like to hear peoples views! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy Taylor Core Developer >>>>>>> JBoss Messaging >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>>>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

> Do the dependency sets conflict between 1.4 and 2.0 (i.e. different > jgroups requirements etc)?

JBM2 no longer uses JGroups or Remoting which may have caused problems.

Part of the problem is that EAP is planning on including a JBM2 profile / option. IMO it would be very weird to ship something in EAP but not in AS. Besides creating a profile, another option we have is to include JBM2 with an install script in docs/examples. Then someone could switch any AS profile to JBM2. Dimitris Andreadis wrote: > We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a good > idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way to share > most of the jars/configuration. > > In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate download. > > Andy Taylor wrote: >> As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a >> technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to be >> created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use for now >> which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and there is something >> concrete and working. >> >> What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll >> definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be called >> messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it would be good to >> also demonstrate clustering which would mean a copy of all, say >> messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a minimal set of >> services maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. >> >> I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles to add >> so I'd like to hear peoples views! >> >> Andy Taylor Core Developer >> JBoss Messaging >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

Because that is just configuration. Shipping just 1.4 in the community, and 1.4 and 2.0 in EAP is completely backwards from the whole upstream concept. David Ward wrote: > Why would this be weird? .com/EAP 4.x has a "production" profile that > .org/AS 4.x does not... > > David > > > Jason T. Greene wrote: >> Part of the problem is that EAP is planning on including a JBM2 >> profile / option. IMO it would be very weird to ship something in EAP >> but not in AS. Besides creating a profile, another option we have is >> to include JBM2 with an install script in docs/examples. Then someone >> could switch any AS profile to JBM2. >> >> Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >>> We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a good >>> idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way to share >>> most of the jars/configuration. >>> >>> In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate download. >>> >>> Andy Taylor wrote: >>>> As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a >>>> technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to be >>>> created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use for now >>>> which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and there is >>>> something concrete and working. >>>> >>>> What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll >>>> definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be called >>>> messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it would be good >>>> to also demonstrate clustering which would mean a copy of all, say >>>> messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a minimal set of >>>> services maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. >>>> >>>> I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles to >>>> add so I'd like to hear peoples views! >>>> >>>> Andy Taylor Core Developer >>>> JBoss Messaging >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jboss-development mailing list >>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> >> > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a good idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way to share most of the jars/configuration. In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate download. Andy Taylor wrote: > As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a > technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to be > created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use for now > which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and there is something > concrete and working. > > What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll > definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be called > messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it would be good to > also demonstrate clustering which would mean a copy of all, say > messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a minimal set of services > maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. > > I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles to add > so I'd like to hear peoples views! > > Andy Taylor Core Developer > JBoss Messaging > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

It's the deployers/ and deploy/ directories that add most of the baggage. Brian Stansberry wrote: > Just to add some data to the discussion, I just took the contents of > the current Branch_5_x/build/output and zipped it, then made two extra > copies of the "all" config and zipped again, the two extra copies > being a kinda worst case scenario for adding two more configs: > > Standard zip size: 106.9 MB > w/ 2 extra "all": 146.9 MB > > I've attached a screenshot of the disk usage of the "All" config. > > > Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >> We have enough configurations so far, so I don't think it's a good >> idea adding any new ones until we come up with with a way to share >> most of the jars/configuration. >> >> In your case it's better to offer the preview as a separate download. >> >> Andy Taylor wrote: >>> As part of the AS 5.1 release we will be shipping JBM 2.0 as a >>> technology preview. This will require 1 or more new profiles to be >>> created. I have created a branch (Branch_5_x_JBM2) to use for now >>> which i will merge in once JBM 2.0 is released and there is >>> something concrete and working. >>> >>> What new profiles we need to add is open to discussion. We'll >>> definitely need a copy of default as a start which could be called >>> messaging-2. However, from a JBM2 point of view, it would be good to >>> also demonstrate clustering which would mean a copy of all, say >>> messaging-2-all, and since JBM2 can run with a minimal set of >>> services maybe a messaging-2-minimal as well. >>> >>> I appreciate that adding all 3 might be too many new profiles to add >>> so I'd like to hear peoples views! >>> >>> Andy Taylor Core Developer >>> JBoss Messaging >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jboss-development mailing list >>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development