The fact that there's no persistence in the runtime is imho a show stopper. If you restart the framework, you can't access the deployed applications anymore. You can't install two applications containing the same bundle (which means you can't install the same application twice), etc ...
I don't have any problems with realeasing it, but we should explicitely mark this component with whatever tag will make our users understand they can't really use it in production, just for testing / preview. Just my 2 cents. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:54, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I want applications included in a release. I do not agree that they > aren't usable. I think there are enhancements that can be made, but > that doesn't mean they aren't usable as is. > > Alasdair > > On 19 February 2010 08:11, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> Open Source SOA >> http://fusesource.com >> > > > > -- > Alasdair Nottingham > [email protected] > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
