[jboss-dev] jboss-cvs-commits Digest, Vol 43, Issue 300

[Thomas Diesler]

We can continue the discussion of technical details off-line.

Let's first agree what direction this is leading to and until when we 
can get this done

#1 Are we both working on getting 2.0.9 into AS
#2 Are we going to provide a patched 2.0.8
#3 Are we going to provide a 2.2.x release

cheers
-thomas

On 01/26/2010 02:29 PM, Ales Justin wrote:
>> > Did we agree on fragments?
>>
>> This is the last I know of
>> http://community.jboss.org/thread/146751?tstart=0
>>
>> I also know that Adrian plans an approach that involves a kind of 
>> dynamic subdeployment in the deployers, which might replace the 
>> current approach in future.
>
> I'm saying we shouldn't use the current approach.
> Since once you use it, you cannot simply remove it from future versions.
> Not to mention it is a quick and dirty hack. :-)
>
>> The current approach allows for fragment test coverage in our 
>> testsuites and fair amount of core TCK tests related to fragments 
>> that pass.
>
> This are all fairly valid reasons.
> But I still disagree that this should be part of jb-cl code.
>
> We already have a bunch of CL code that atm only lives in our OSGi 
> facade,
> currently making transparent OSGi addition impossible [1].
> So, rather than hacking away stable jb-cl project,
> we should just introduce this fragments only in OSGi facade - which is 
> something I think you already had at the beginning.
>
> [1] - it's possible to change some core components manually and it 
> will work,
> the final solution will allow for transparent addition.
>
>> > You also shouldn't update pom info to MC kernel, as this is meant 
>> for 2.2.x versions
>>
>> I believe there was a compile issue in classloading-vfs that made 
>> this necessary.
>
> Which compile issues?
>
>> Currently, the jboss-cl-2.0.x code base is used together with 
>> kernel-2.2.x in AS6.
>> I suppose that might justify this dependency update as well.
>
> I tested the old CL 2.0.8 with both Kernel versions, and there were no 
> problems.
> (there might be some with 2.2.0.Alpha1, as we prematurely removed 
> ControllerState ctor, but should be fine with 2.2.0.Alpha2)
>
> The MC components are loosely coupled, only "connecting" on spi/api,
> which shouldn't change for 2.x versions.
> Hence I don't see a problem with CL using the old one.
> I actually think it's even better that the 2.0.x CL also uses 2.0.x 
> Kernel.
> (might be different with VFS, as we spotted more bugz there, hence 
> needed to make more "drastic" changes, leading to API changes)
>
>

-- 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
JBoss OSGi Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx