Seeing that David Jecks has untertaken the buildsystem refactor (excellent work, David!), I don't see the need for the async component to be in a sandbox any more. There are a couple of reasons why I would really prefer trunk (after having thought about it for a little while): - being apart from the rest of Aries, the sandbox is less visible - the sandbox doesn't have Hudson builds, so no continuous integration - since one of the goals of Aries is to collaborate on components that might turn into OSGi Specifications I think that doing this collaboration in a clearly visible place, like trunk is best.
So... if there are no objections to this I'll add an 'async' module to trunk over the coming few days. Best regards, David On 24 February 2010 11:48, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I guess this thread got obsoleted by the Aries Release thread a little :) > > Once the buildsystem refactor is done as suggested on that thread, > there shouldn't really be a need to do experimental components in the > sandbox, right? Or do people feel strongly that they should? I guess I > would prefer the main trunk as they would then also be included in the > hudson builds etc... > > Thanks, > > David > > On 23 February 2010 17:49, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> me too >> >> Joe >> >> Alasdair Nottingham wrote: >>> >>> Makes sense to me. >>> >>> Alasdair >>> >>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 15:04, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sandbox sounds fine to me. >>>> Should I also move the SPI Fly component to the sandbox? Since that >>>> one's experimental too... >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> On 23 February 2010 02:58, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> +1 - the sandbox seems to work well for other apache projects. >>>>> Alternatively >>>>> I guess we could continue to use the contrib location for this purpose. >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Joe >> >
