I'd vote for *not* including 315 into 1.4 and getting it done on CVS head only. Later, we can always backport it to 1.4. Besides, this is a COMPLEX issue and for now it belongs into the (experimental) CVS head branch, rather than the relatively stable 1.4 branch. Again, we have to prioritize tasks Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: > Hey guys, > > It is becoming more and more obvious to me that porting JBCACHE-315 > solution to 1.4 branch is not going to be an easy task. Let me > elaborate. Requirements for JBCACHE-315 as far as JGroups goes are > all > in place. However, only HEAD branch of JBC has all other > prerequisites > that allow direct implementation of JBCACHE-315 in a reasonable time > frame for our release dates. JBC 1.4 branch is a different story. 1.4 > branch does not have partial state transfer implemented on top native > JGroups partial state mechanism - it uses RPC based mechanism with > additional support framework (activation queues etc). > If we really have to have JBCACHE-315 in 1.4.1 GA in time we have > to add > some additional resource to help me out. For example, we can have > Brian > assist me on JBCACHE-315 while I port partial state transfer from > HEAD > to 1.4 branch. Brian is overflowed with work already. Having > JBCACHE-315 > in 1.4 branch would require configuration stack change to include > FLUSH. > We have to do testing for that as well as regressions testing for > replacement of old partial state transfer. A bit risky so close to > release. > Do you have some ideas how we can squeeze JBCACHE-315 in 1.4.1 or > should > we include it only in HEAD? > Vladimir > _______________________________________________ > jbosscache-dev mailing list > jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev > > -- Bela Ban Lead JGroups / JBoss Clustering team JBoss - a division of Red Hat _______________________________________________ jbosscache-dev mailing list jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev