David Jencks wrote:
Without some major justification I'm seriously -1 on releasing from
the sandbox. I don't see any problem with moving this code to
components and releasing it from there, whether or not it then moves
somewhere else.
I'm also uncomfortable for the release tag for this being in the
sandbox. Too easy for this to be deleted accidentally from there.
Another option is to copy it to servicemix for this release.
Here are some nit's I'd prefer to see fixed or explained before release:
1. Most subprojects' NOTICE file are hardcoded rather than using
appended-resources w/remote-resources-plugin. Does every non-test
bundle really include non-apache software?
I was just checking on this very thing. Neither the blueprint-core jars
nor the blueprint-cm jars contain the OSGi API classes, so their NOTICES
probably should not include the OSGi reference.
2. the Bundle-Symbolic-Name values are ${artifactId} rather than the
default from the bundle plugin. I'd really prefer to see "geronimo"
somewhere in the name
I agree. The symbolic name should be more fully qualified.
.
3. I don't understand what most of the stuff in blueprint-bundle
pom.xml is for and I'd prefer to see it explained. My experiments
lead me to suspect you don't need the maven-shade-plugin. What is the
motivation for this bundle in the first place?
4. blueprint.xsd is not a geronimo schema but it's under
org/apache/geronimo/blueprint.
5. blueprint-api uses jar packaging. Why?
In general I'd like to see descriptions in the poms for noobs like me.
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 9, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
Hi Guillaume,
I guess I'd like to have some discussion about this, before voting...
If there's a desire to move this code to the new incubator project,
I'm not sure why we'd be releasing out of Geronimo, now...
Also, if we do decide to release, I wouldn't think that we'd want the
code to be in sandbox.
--kevan
