On 25 mai 2011, at 15:13, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > On 5/25/11 3:10 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: >> On 25 mai 2011, at 14:52, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >> >>> On 5/25/11 2:48 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: >>>> Hi Emmanuel, >>>> >>>> On 24 mai 2011, at 21:28, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This is a vote for the forth milestone release on our way to a Shared >>>>> and LDAP API 1.0. Many fixes have been injected, and some major >>>>> refactoring >>>>> have been done, including making the API OSGi compatible. >>>> Hum, I thought the API was already OSGI compatible in previous milestones. >>>> One major difference since 1.0.0-M3 I think is, the removal of the >>>> embedded Apache Felix OSGI container. >>> Hmm, you may be right. Or I expressed what I had in mind incorrectly : the >>> API is now OSGi compatible assuming your application has a OSGi container, >>> but we don't provide one. This is what I had in mind. >>> >>>>> The SVN tag: >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/shared/tags/1.0.0-M4 >>>>> >>>>> The source and binary distribution packages: >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~elecharny/ >>>> I thing these files are not necessary for the release and should not be >>>> copied to the distribution server: >>>> - apache-ldap-api-1.0.0-M4.pom >>>> - apache-ldap-api-1.0.0-M4.pom.asc >>>> - apache-ldap-api-1.0.0-M4.pom.asc.asc >>> Sure. They have been generated automatically, I don't know why. >>>> I'm not sure the key you used to sign the release has been added to the >>>> KEYS file at the root of the Directory project distributions directory >>>> (However it seems to be present in Mina's KEYS file). >>>> I was unable to verify the *.asc signed files. >>> ahha... May be the KEYS we have in directory is not up to date. Let me fix >>> that. >>>> Is it normal that we still bundle the >>>> "org.apache.felix.framework-3.2.0.jar" module in the lib directory ? >>> Hmmm, no. We have to remove the dependency, I guess. Some cleanup we can do >>> in M5 >> Yeah, definitely... >> I guess a dependency towards OSGI is still necessary since we have kept the >> bundle activators to allow the use of the API in an OSGI environment. >> Something less _expensive_ than the "Apache Felix Framework" could be used, >> like the org.osgi:org.osgi.core module. > > The best, atm, would be to fill a JIRA. > > I'd like to get the 1.0.0-M4 out asap, if there is nothing wrong in the > release, in order to get back to documentation, using the modified API. This > is mostly the reason I wanted this release out, all in all...
Yeah, IMO, this isn't something blocker for the release. Just a minor cleaning that we need to take care before the next milestone. This aside, the release seems good to me. [X] +1 Release Shared 1.0.0-M4 Regards, Pierre-Arnaud
