in your decision.
Jay Jaeger
-Original Message-
From: Ruwan Linton [mailto:ruwan.lin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 10:38 PM
To: u...@synapse.apache.org
Cc: dev@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Synapse configuration namespace
OK
We need to do the 2.0.0 release ASAP
-Original Message-
From: Ruwan Linton [mailto:ruwan.lin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 10:38 PM
To: u...@synapse.apache.org
Cc: dev@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Synapse configuration namespace
OK
We need to do the 2.0.0 release ASAP, it has been dragging way too much
I'm +1 for a namespace change if we have changed the semantics of the
synapse configuration language at a broader level. But since we haven't done
any major change to the configuration language im 0 on this. So my opinion
solely depend on what users will think and how they will get affected.
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:25 PM
To: dev@synapse.apache.org
Cc: u...@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Synapse configuration namespace
I'm +1 for a namespace change if we have changed the semantics of the synapse
configuration language at a broader level. But since we haven't done
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Hubert, Eric eric.hub...@foxmobile.comwrote:
Well, I think I have to agree with Sanjiva’s statement about the meaning
of namespaces for an end user. I also do not know many people really caring
about namespaces as long as those namespaces are not causing any
OK
We need to do the 2.0.0 release ASAP, it has been dragging way too much, and
I don't want to delay it because of a namespace change and do not want to
call another vote for this. Let me take your votes from this thread and try
to summarize the decision on this.
If I have interpreted this
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Ruwan Linton ruwan.lin...@gmail.com wrote:
OK
We need to do the 2.0.0 release ASAP, it has been dragging way too much, and
I don't want to delay it because of a namespace change and do not want to
call another vote for this. Let me take your votes from
-Original Message-
From: Ruwan Linton [mailto:ruwan.lin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:10 AM
To: dev@synapse.apache.org
Cc: u...@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Synapse configuration namespace
Since we were planing for a 2.0 release, I thought it is OK to do
features.
Regards,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Ruwan Linton [mailto:ruwan.lin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:10 AM
To: dev@synapse.apache.org
Cc: u...@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Synapse configuration namespace
Since we were planing for a 2.0 release
,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Ruwan Linton [mailto:ruwan.lin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:10 AM
To: dev@synapse.apache.org
Cc: u...@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Synapse configuration namespace
Since we were planing for a 2.0 release, I thought
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ruwan Linton ruwan.lin...@gmail.comwrote:
Also, in general using namespaces to version XML schemas is generally
considered bad practice.
I don't think we are doing a versioning of the synapse configuration schema
with the namespace, anyway most of
Then
I found more incompatible changes :-(
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNAPSE-693?focusedCommentId=12934217page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12934217
I do not understand why you are opposing to changing the namespace with 2.0
release, while we
...@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Synapse configuration namespace
Since we were planing for a 2.0 release, I thought it is OK to do backwards
incompatible changes and document them properly. Well we have some changes
in the API as well, which will affect the existing mediators and so forth.
Do you
I don't see the point in changing the namespace unless there is an
incompatibility at the core. We wrote the model to be very flexible.
Having a migration XSLT is great, but it seems to me a fix for
something that is tricky. Also, we spent a lot of effort on backwards
compatibility: for example,
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Paul Fremantle pzf...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the point in changing the namespace unless there is an
incompatibility at the core. We wrote the model to be very flexible.
Having a migration XSLT is great, but it seems to me a fix for
something
Since we were planing for a 2.0 release, I thought it is OK to do backwards
incompatible changes and document them properly. Well we have some changes
in the API as well, which will affect the existing mediators and so forth.
Do you think we should keep the ability to run the 1.x mediators as it
Sanjiva,
We have a complete migration XSLT (it is not just the namespace, we have a
few configuration language changes as well), what we could do is that, if we
find the namespace to be the 1.x while tying to build the configuration
model, we could first run the script and update the synapse
I realize this is a bit of a late response :(.
This change will break all existing users. How about at least supporting
both namespaces?
(Maybe this is too late now for the release ... in which case there's no
point doing it later.)
Sanjiva.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Ruwan Linton
We need to update all the samples as well.
Rajika
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ruwan Linton ruwan.lin...@gmail.comwrote:
Relevant changes for this namespace change has been done on the trunk.
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Hiranya Jayathilaka
hiranya...@gmail.com
I think I have done that as well Rajika. Please take an svn update and see.
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri raj...@wso2.com wrote:
We need to update all the samples as well.
Rajika
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ruwan Linton ruwan.lin...@gmail.comwrote:
Relevant changes for this namespace change has been done on the trunk.
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Hiranya Jayathilaka
hiranya...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Ruwan Linton ruwan.lin...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
We have been using the
21 matches
Mail list logo
