RE: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1

[Kopylenko, D. <dko...@ac...>]

The CVS version is in production. No issues reported so far...

Regards,
Dmitriy.

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Sampaleanu [mailto:col...@ex...]=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:46 AM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1


I've been using the CVS version without issues; actually it's even in=20
production...    I have on my todo list to create a test case for=20
testing the new Hibernate JTA stuff with CMT; I've been busy, but will=20
make sure this is done by the weekend...

Regards,
Colin


j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT] wrote:

>Everybody,
>=20
>As we're about to release Spring 1.0.1 by the beginning of next week,=20
>we need to re-test the current CVS contents thoroughly. The most =
important
area is Hibernate/JTA integration: Flushing failures should now be =
handled
properly; and ThreadLocal Sessions should work without =
JtaTransactionManager
too, as long as there's a Hibernate TransactionManagerLookup =
configured.
>=20
>As a side note: Hibernate's TransactionManagerLookup can be configured =

>via Spring too, passing a javax.transaction.TransactionManager into
LocalSessionFactoryBean's "jtaTransactionManager" property. Normally, =
this
will be a JndiObjectFactoryBean reference, possibly shared with
JtaTransactionManager (i.e. passed into the latter's =
"transactionManager"
property too).
>=20
>If anyone finds some further areas in the documentation that need=20
>completion or polishing, please address them this week rather than =
next one
:-)
>=20
>Juergen
>=20
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag=20
>von j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]
>Gesendet: Fr 09.04.2004 07:57
>An: spr...@li...
>Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>
>"AbstractPrototypeBasedTargetSource" may be a bit wordy, but I like =
it,=20
>as it hits the nail: "prototype-based" is what it is. I've got a new=20
>favourite :-)
>
>Juergen
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag=20
>von Rod Johnson
>Gesendet: Do 08.04.2004 20:21
>An: spr...@li...
>Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>
>AbstractDynamicTargetSource is OK by me, although I'm not in love with =

>it. Technically of course a dynamic target source need not use the =
bean=20
>factory at all. But AbstractPrototypeBasedTargetSource is a bit=20
>wordy...
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]" <jue...@we...>
>To: <spr...@li...>
>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>Final decision here? I still vote for "AbstractDynamicTargetSource"; =
at=20
>least against "AbstractPrototypeTargetSource".
>
>Juergen
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: spr...@li...
>[mailto:spr...@li...]On =
Behalf=20
>Of j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:51 AM
>To: spr...@li...
>Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>Actually, I still prefer "AbstractDynamicTargetSource": Target beans=20
>being defined as prototypes is a requirement for any meaningful =
dynamic=20
>target source strategy (no matter if one-shot, ThreadLocal or pooled), =

>therefore I consider it fine that AbstractDynamicTargetSource=20
>implicitly works with prototype target beans. But just=20
>PrototypeTargetSource delivers actual=20
>one-instance-per-method-invocation semantics, rather than pooling=20
>instances or the like.
>
>Juergen
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag=20
>von j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]
>Gesendet: So 04.04.2004 16:25
>An: spr...@li...
>Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>
>That's what I meant with the different meaning of the term =
"prototype":=20
>AbstractPrototypeTargetSource just assumes that the bean that it=20
>references is a prototype, allowing to expose targets with ThreadLocal =

>or pooling semantics. On the other hand, PrototypeTargetSource =
actually=20
>exposes a "prototype" target, i.e. a new target object on each method=20
>invocation (analogous to the term "prototype" used in bean=20
>definitions).
>
>I agree that the term "prototype" isn't wrong in=20
>AbstractPrototypeTargetSource, but it's used with somewhat different=20
>meaning than in PrototypeTargetSource. To avoid confusion for people=20
>that dig into Spring's javadoc or even implementation, we should use=20
>different terms here, i.e. use the term "prototype" for a more =
specific=20
>meaning (preferably the one analogous to bean definitions).
>
>I'm open for other suggestions, of course!
>
>Juergen
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag=20
>von Rod Johnson
>Gesendet: So 04.04.2004 16:08
>An: spr...@li...
>Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>
>I guess AbstractDynamicTargetSource is an improvement. I agree the=20
>naming pattern isn't great, but the abstract base class _does_ work=20
>with prototype definitions, so having Prototype in its name does make=20
>sense. It's not a generic "Dynamic" TargetSource because it works with =

>bean names and
>getBeans() assuming a prototype.
>
>Any other suggestions? If this is renamed, I'd rather that it was=20
>undebatably right.
>
>R
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]" <jue...@we...>
>To: <spr...@li...>
>Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 6:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>A minor naming issue that I've noticed: We have an=20
>AbstractPrototypeTargetSource, which serves as base class for=20
>PrototypeTargetSource, ThreadLocalTargetSource and=20
>AbstractPoolingTargetSource. We don't have the AbstractXxx/Xxx naming=20
>pattern anywhere else in the framework. (I've actually removed a=20
>similar naming pattern in the AbstractAutoProxyCreator area before 1.0 =

>final.)
>
>Furthermore, "AbstractPrototypeTargetSource" is actually a bit=20
>misleading, as we're using a broader meaning of the word prototype =
here=20
>than found in bean definitions. "PrototypeTargetSource" matches the=20
>bean definition term exactly, but the base class is more generic: So=20
>what about renaming it to "AbstractDynamicTargetSource" or the like,=20
>indicating that it serves as base class for all non-singleton=20
>TargetSources?
>
>Like the AopUtils move, this should be fine in terms of compatibility=20
>level, as the base class is not part of the public API but rather an=20
>internal implementation detail. PrototypeTargetSource and co will =
still=20
>be fully backward compatible after that change, and I doubt that =
anyone=20
>has implemented custom TargetSources yet (and even if, it's trivial to =

>adapt).
>
>Juergen
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag=20
>von Rod Johnson
>Gesendet: Fr 02.04.2004 16:53
>An: spr...@li...
>Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>
>I suggest that we sit on this code for at least a week until we =
release=20
>it, so we can catch anything else. How about we target Monday week for =

>release?
>
>A 1.0.1 release should be driven by stability, not date, so we should=20
>see if any more issues come out of the woodwork.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]" <jue...@we...>
>To: <spr...@li...>
>Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:57 AM
>Subject: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for 1.0.1
>
>
>Hi everybody,
>
>From my point of view, the code is ready for release 1.0.1. There were =

>a couple of bug fixes and minor enhancements since 1.0 final. The most =

>important fix is proper Hibernate/JTA resource management when flush=20
>fails. Enhancements include the introduction of the=20
>MessageCodesResolver interface in the validation package, and a more=20
>efficient internal implementation of AbstractMessageSource. See the=20
>changelog for details.
>
>Please give the current CVS snapshot a try. There shouldn't be any=20
>issues, as changes are minor and just affect specific functionality.=20
>I'd like to target mid next week for the release, i.e. two weeks after =

>1.0 final. In the meantime, the only thing I plan to address is the=20
>lack of remoting coverage in the reference docs. If anyone feels the=20
>need to improve other parts of the docs, please do so till mid next=20
>week!
>
>Juergen
> =20
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of =
GenToo
technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id638&op=3Dclick
_______________________________________________
Springframework-developer mailing list
Spr...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer