Hi, I'm sorry if you don't feel that the problems you've had with proxy are being addressed fast enough, my understanding was that things were, for the most part, working now. Clearly there is a JCDI bug related to synthetic methods, however I have suggested a 1 line work-around in the proxy code for that. There is also a patch on the dev list that should reduce the additional memory overhead you noticed.
Is there more that I'm unaware of? Are there other test cases failing? Regards, Tim ---------------------------------------- > Subject: Re: internal version conflict in aries application (at least) > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:16:33 -0700 > To: [email protected] > > > On May 30, 2011, at 10:21 AM, zoe slattery wrote: > > > > >>> This branch development version is incorrect because of the switch of > >>> release scheme. In switching release scheme one assumption was that > >>> nothing would ever be released from the 0.3 branch again so maybe it > >>> ought to be deleted? Any future releases will always be from trunk. > >> That may not be a safe assumption. Geronimo would like to get a release > >> out pretty soon and there is little evidence at the moment that trunk will > >> be stable enough to be usable. On the other hand 0.3 also has its share of > >> blocking bugs. > > Releasing from the 0.3 branch has some implications for Aries release > > management - I suspect that it has the potential to create a lot of work so > > I would encourage you to use what is in trunk if you possibly can. > > I'd like to figure out an appropriate version number for the 0.3 branch and > change to it. It would be great to get trunk released but every time I turn > around I find another problem apparently with the weaving/proxying code and > I'm not confident we can find and fix all the problems quickly enough. > > Locally I made a 0.3.0.1-SNAPSHOT application branch that appeared to work > fine with geronimo. What do you expect to be a problem with changing the > versions in 0.3-RCx to 0.3.0.1-SNAPSHOT? > > thanks > david jencks > > > > > Zoe > >> > > >
