Not that I'm aware of. Alasdair
On 19 February 2010 14:38, Roland Huß <[email protected]> wrote: > Just out of curiosity: Is there a way to get the updated EEG Spec > (as a non OSGi member) ? As an early adaptor of the OSGi JMX API > I'm really curious about the changes in it. > > ...roland > > On 19.02.2010, at 14:21, adam wojtuniak wrote: > >> About JMX: >> API needs to be updated (I will start on that next week) cause its out of >> date. When that will be done I don't see a problem to release JMX. >> All the functionality from the spec will be there. >> Requested improvements we can add with a new relaese. >> >> Cheers, >> Adam >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I think there >>> is at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader generate >>> EBAs using different techniques - but both leverage the maven-antrun-plugin >>> to finally produce a file of type "eba". >>> >>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a maven >>> repository. >>> >>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a jar using the >>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The jar will be >>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an "application" even >>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is correct then >>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable approach for the 1st >>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox assembly to >>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual bundles. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>> >>>> I'd like to see at least those included: >>>> * blueprint >>>> * jmx >>>> * jndi >>>> * transaction >>>> >>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't really >>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it. >>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using it mostly >>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix. >>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking about >>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note). >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for >>>>> volunteering >>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a better picture >>>>> of >>>>> the plans. >>>>> >>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing since >>>>> it >>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb means it will >>>>> be >>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little too steep to >>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get everybody >>>>> thinking >>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there are any >>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of creating a >>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting more >>>>> restrictive >>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out - but in >>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't functional. >>>>> At >>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of the >>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example transaction). >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now out on >>>>>> vacation until monday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we have >>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must haves' >>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the distribution >>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of the >>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible. Since >>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns - w.r.t >>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If there are >>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included please >>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and target >>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target a new >>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Jeremy >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeremy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the release and >>>>>>> potential >>>>>>> target dates? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your thoughts in an >>>>>>> email >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we make >>>>>>> progress. >>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would like to see >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from "nice >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates for the >>>>>>> release, >>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help. >>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to put those >>>>>>>>> on the wiki. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the process has >>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jeremy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all components at a >>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 >>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning scheme, IMO. >>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an issue. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an important >>>>>>>>>>> step >>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this happen... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --kevan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet >>>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA >>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joe >>> > > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
