Cool- no specific objections from me if it seems like it will avoid a client
failure- just trying to help think through it...
On 1/12/21, 7:32 PM, "Benjamin Ross" <ro...@vmware.com> wrote:
The only downside I'm aware of is the effort to backport it which is
minimal. Although a missing dependency in this way might be easy to diagnose it
would still be awesome if we could prevent a potential failure ahead of time.
________________________________
From: John Hutchison <hutchiso...@vmware.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 7:57 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Should We Backport Publishing of Geode Tomcat
Module
Hey Sarah
Is there any downside to backporting it?
Does the missing dependency seem like something that would be easily
diagnosed if a minor version is created in the future? Or does it seem like
backporting it now would potentially save people hours of work later on?
-John
On 1/11/21, 3:08 PM, "Sarah Abbey" <sab...@vmware.com> wrote:
Hey, Anil,
It would be really easy to backport. It is needed for the Geode Tomcat
Module to be published to Maven along with the other Geode artifacts. These
changes could be made locally and the artifacts could be published to local
Maven or some other artifactory, but it is easier for the user if they are
available alongside other Geode artifacts in Maven.
There is no user request for this specifically, and we don't need a
minor release of Geode. We just thought it might be nice to include if a minor
version of a past Geode release is created in the future.
________________________________
From: Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@vmware.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:51 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Should We Backport Publishing of Geode Tomcat
Module
Is there a user request to use this in an older version?
How easy is it to backport?
From the comments, it looks like it is needed for Geode artifacts
published to Maven? Is this true?
If there is no user request, and there is other way to include Tomcat
session, my view is to not backport, but I am not expert in this area, if there
is recommendation to backport, I am fine to. And if it has to be backported, it
should be on the version widely used and above(say 1.10 and above, again
depending on how easy to backport)...
-Anil.
On 1/11/21, 10:10 AM, "Sarah Abbey" <sab...@vmware.com> wrote:
Hey, Geode Devs!
Ben Ross and I are currently working on session state in Geode. In
order to include the Geode Tomcat session module in the Geode artifacts
published to Maven, we had to update the module so it publishes to Maven (as
seen in this
PR<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F5610&data=04%7C01%7Chutchisonjo%40vmware.com%7C571cb86bb2b54446f44108d8b75aba51%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637460947600847652%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=BEP3T27Pm5FY9JG5D4VqzBU29E4urJVhY39xLT7Glec%3D&reserved=0>
and this
PR<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F5762&data=04%7C01%7Chutchisonjo%40vmware.com%7C571cb86bb2b54446f44108d8b75aba51%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637460947600847652%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=OTWmuCW8cLQnzsDe0e5SZ70sVmAXqFmwFSyk2LR06kY%3D&reserved=0>).
This change is only on the current develop branch. We are now wondering if
these changes should be backported to older versions of Geode.
What does everyone think? If it should be backported, to which
versions should it be backported?
Thank you,
Sarah
