On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Simon, > My preference would be to "Start with the smallest set of modules possible > and iterate toward OASIS compliance adding in more function/extensions as > people address different features/specifications", > as I believe this option would give us a more clear direction on where we > are heading towards. > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Several alternatives have been suggested [1] which I summarize here. >> >> A) Start from what we already have in trunk, develop the OASIS function, >> introduce new improvements or improvements from the Equinox branch as >> appropriate >> B) Start from a completely clean trunk and build up from there based on >> the resources we have in the the 1.x code stream, in the Equinox branch or >> from new developments >> C) Start from what is in the Equinox branch >> >> Is this correct? Are there other combinations people want to consider? >> There is a related question of how we develop trunk toward OASIS compliance. >> I see two extremes; >> >> i) Start with a full set of modules and update to OASIS compliance while >> keeping all the function we have running >> ii) Start with the smallest set of modules possible and iterate toward >> OASIS compliance adding in more function/extensions as people address >> different features/specifications. >> >> Again, are there other approaches? >> >> The object of this discussion is to agree the starting point for future >> trunk development. If you don't have other options to add it would be useful >> for you to express a preference so we can see what people think. If we can't >> come to a conclusion in the next couple of days though this discussion we >> will have to identify a small number of options to vote on. >> >> Thanks >> >> Simon >> >> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40tuscany.apache.org/msg03215.html >> > > I liked what was said over on the other thread [1]: "...starting afresh in trunk based on the assets that we already have, primarily that it gives us all the opportunity to feel involved in how Tuscany v2.0 will look" So i guess thats closest to (B ii). Its not that clear yet how this would actually work but it sounds like a good thing to aim for. ..ant [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/apawwigihmpgx7sk
