Yeah, I agree.  What about put it in a sandbox area for now if you
want to experiment and move it to trunk after the release?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:52, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given that we are trying to do a release at the moment this makes me
> wonder how we should differentiate things which are experimental and
> wouldn't be part of the release, and things which are to be part of
> the release.
>
> Thoughts?
> Alasdair
>
> On 22 February 2010 11:00,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> In the OSGi Alliance we're currently working on defining 'Asynchronous
>> Distributed OSGi' in various forms and what that might look like.
>> Currently the work is divided up into three areas:
>> * Bringing JMS to OSGi
>> * Message Driven Components
>> * Asynchronous Services
>> We're really at the requirements gathering stage right now...
>>
>> In the mean time I'm looking for a place where we can do some
>> experimentation and collaboration in the area in order to get a better
>> understanding of these problems and potential solutions. I would love
>> to start a component in Aries for this purpose.
>> The three areas identified above are more or less orthogonal, but I
>> can see many cases where they are combined, so at least initially I
>> think a single experimentation area for them would be good.
>> Then, when the dust settles a bit we might extract a number of
>> independent components... Anyway, that's at least how I think we could
>> do it, but I would also have no big issues with three separate
>> experimentation areas (or maybe three submodules of an async top-level
>> module would be a middle ground).
>>
>> Anyway, if people think this is a good idea I can start putting some
>> of the structure in the build system over the coming few days...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alasdair Nottingham
> [email protected]
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Reply via email to