Hi,
While I agree that it would be odd to use ${a+b} notation in the way you
describe the fact it works today makes me really unhappy with disabling it
as a result of this change. I don't think that JSTL and blueprint are that
analogous, so I don't think enabling this by default for everyone is the
right way to do. We should respect the existing support and exploit good
modularity to allow this to be plugged in as desired.
Alasdair
On 13 September 2011 09:32, Rex Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alasdair,
>
> I am sorry for replying slow because I am on vacation.
>
> This looks much better than a new namespace to me. Thank you very much for
> thinking a lot on this!
> I can accept the new approach. But, IMHO, I think we should really "forbid"
> user use following style in blueprint-ext :
> (1) "a+b" as a key of value. eg: <property name="a+b" value="xxx" />
> (2) "${a+b}" as the injection value. eg: <property name="zzz"
> value="${a+b}"
> /> which expects the string ${a+b} to be injected to zzz.
> I think the above two styles are not that useful and always bring a lot of
> confusion while programming. And this is also not consistent with the
> existing development experiences in JSTL. So, my point of view is not that
> we must stick to jexl, I just hope we can support such evaluation natively.
>
> Anyway, if community decides, I respect.
>
> thanks,
>
> -Rex
>
> 2011/9/9 Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have thought of a possible update we could do that would enable this
> > without a new namespace. I'll outline it here. Make a minor update to the
> > ext schema (making it 1.2.0) so we can do the following:
> >
> > <property-placeholder evaluator="jexl">
> > <default-properties>
> > <property name="name" value="value" />
> > </default-properties>
> > <location>file:///url</ext:location>
> > </property-placeholder>
> >
> > The namespace handler then inserts a synthetic service dependency on a
> > service of type PropertyProcessor with the service property "type=jexl".
> > This means the blueprint container would only be configured while the
> > desired processor is available. Then we update the code where we do the
> > processing to use the PropertyProcessor service instead of having it
> > hardcoded.
> >
> > This solves my issues around correct modularity, your issues around
> > programming model simplicity, and it would also allow us to plug other
> > processors/evaluators such as groovy in the future very easily.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Alasdair
> >
> > On 9 September 2011 10:39, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Alasdair,
> > >
> > > Thanks for taking the time to write a test that answers my question. I
> > had
> > > a suspicion that this sort of thing would happen. It needs to be
> possible
> > > for the blueprint bundle to behave consistently whether JEXL is
> installed
> > or
> > > not.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:26:18 +0100
> > > > Subject: Re: [Release Discussion] ship maintenance releases of
> > > application-0.2.2 / util-0.2.1 / blueprint-0.3.2 ?
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > So lets get real with an example to start illustrating my issues. We
> > have
> > > a
> > > > release already and the release is used by people, quite a few
> people.
> > We
> > > > don't know what they are doing. I have written a test. The test uses
> > the
> > > > sample blueprint bundle. It contains the following blueprint xml:
> > > >
> > > > <bean id="bar2" class="org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample.Bar">
> > > >
> > > > <property name="value" value="${a+b}"/>
> > > >
> > > > </bean>
> > > >
> > > > The setValue method takes a String. I have run these tests in two
> ways.
> > > The
> > > > first with jexl and the second without. If jexl isn't installed I
> get:
> > > >
> > > > ${a+b}
> > > >
> > > > when jexl is installed I get:
> > > >
> > > > 0
> > > >
> > > > Irrespective of how useful this is to people who want the behaviour
> it
> > is
> > > a
> > > > huge problem for those people who do NOT want this behaviour. It is
> > easy
> > > to
> > > > say "well don't install jexl then", but consider this. I have written
> a
> > > > blueprint bundle that expects to have ${a+b} injected. I deploy it
> in
> > > one
> > > > runtime and it works the way I expect. Now I drop it into Geronimo
> and
> > I
> > > get
> > > > 0 instead. So I now need to go back and rewrite my bundle to work in
> > > > geronimo and I have two different bundles for each environment. This
> is
> > > > wrong.
> > > >
> > > > As said before I think we need this enabled via a namespace handler
> and
> > > an
> > > > attribute. I would require the following to be added to the blueprint
> > > > element:
> > > >
> > > > <blueprint jexl:enable="true" xmlns:jexl="
> > > > http://aries.apache.org/blueprint/xmlns/blueprint-jexl/v1.0.0"/>
> > > >
> > > > any existing application will then behave consistently irrespective
> of
> > > what
> > > > is installed in the surrounding framework. Even the one I just
> created.
> > > If
> > > > the jexl bundle isn't installed then the jexl namespace handler is
> not
> > > > installed so the blueprint bundle will not be processed until it is
> in
> > > the
> > > > normal way. The code in question can remain where it is, but it would
> > > only
> > > > be enabled if the jexl namespace is configured. Ideally we would be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > parameterise the value processing in a pluggable way, but as long as
> > the
> > > > externals are right we can refactor the internals at our leisure.
> > > >
> > > > We are creating a programming model for OSGi here and that means we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > get the modularity right. Currently it is not right, not only is the
> > > > modularity wrong but this makes a breaking change to the way a
> > > blueprint.xml
> > > > is processed in what is a bug release. Irrespective of how useful
> this
> > is
> > > I
> > > > do not think it is important enough to warrant a breaking change when
> > we
> > > can
> > > > make it work without breaking existing bundles.
> > > >
> > > > To address your question of "Do you think it is a good idea to
> support
> > > > this?" I do think it is a good idea, if I didn't I would have -1ed
> the
> > > > commit rather than engaged in an email discussion to get it right.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Alasdair
> > > >
> > > > On 8 September 2011 14:35, Rex Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 2011/9/8 Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 8 September 2011 10:10, Rex Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2011/9/8 Timothy Ward <[email protected]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm afraid I've not been paying as much attention as I should
> > to
> > > this
> > > > > > > > thread. Reading back over the issues. I would currently vote
> -1
> > > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > release. I am not at all happy with the fact that users of
> this
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > see different, potentially erroneous, behaviour depending on
> > the
> > > > > > presence
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > absence of an optional dependency. Our previous statement has
> > > always
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > "If a blueprint bundle wants to use some non-standard
> function
> > it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > declare that using an additional namespace".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you mean the statement in spec 121.4:
> > > > > > > "The Blueprint XML resources in a bundle are the definitions.
> > Each
> > > > > > > definition can include multiple
> > > > > > > namespaces. Implementations of the Blueprint core namespace
> must
> > > > > strictly
> > > > > > > follow this specification,
> > > > > > > if they add additional behavior they must add additional
> > namespaces
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > actually used in
> > > > > > > the definitions to signal the deviation from this
> > specification."?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are improving the blueprint-ext, which has been already an
> > > > > additional
> > > > > > > namespace to blueprint core schema. Why must we add a new
> > namespace
> > > to
> > > > > > > extend the ability of blueprint-ext?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Blueprint ext is a part of our core implementation. Adding it to
> > > > > > blueprint-ext means that if you want to use ANY part of blueprint
> > ext
> > > you
> > > > > > MUST have apache-jexl even if you don't wan to use the ${a+b}
> > syntax.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > is wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Alasdair,
> > > > > The itests passes without adding the commons-jexl bundle now.
> > > > > If you don't have commons-jexl installed, the current code can work
> > as
> > > > > before. Unless you want to use ${a+b}, you need guarantee the
> > > commons-jexl
> > > > > is present. Otherwise it will record this exception in logger. I
> know
> > > this
> > > > > is not that convenient, but at least user can know what he need to
> do
> > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > things right from the log..
> > > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, Java EE EL supports such style of calculation
> > > natively,
> > > > > I
> > > > > think we should support it in blueprint-ext directly to keep the
> > > consistent
> > > > > of the current development experiences. In other words, if we don't
> > use
> > > > > commons-jexl to implement such ability, instead, we write codes by
> > > > > ourselves
> > > > > to do that. Do you think it is a good idea to support this? After
> > all,
> > > > > there
> > > > > is no spec for blueprint-ext.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > -Rex
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In my view this new function should only be available if the
> > > optional
> > > > > > > > dependency is satisfied, and blueprint bundles must enable
> this
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > using a custom namespace. Otherwise I see two problems.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want this new support, but have no way to ensure it is
> > present,
> > > as
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > result I am sometimes injected with "1+2" instead of "3".
> This
> > > leads
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > intermittent NumberFormatExceptions
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not want this new support, but as the dependency is
> > available
> > > I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > > > injected with "3" instead of "1+2". This leads to
> inconsistent
> > > and
> > > > > > > confusing
> > > > > > > > behaviour.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure I understand this..
> > > > > > > If you want 3, you need <xxx value="${1+2}">
> > > > > > > If you want 1+2, you should use <xxx value="1+2">
> > > > > > > Only the expression in ${..} will trigger the calculation, no
> > > matter if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > dependency if available.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I think tim is saying you want the string literal "${1+2}" not
> the
> > > string
> > > > > > 1+2. With your change if I had ${1+2} I now get 3 rather than
> > ${1+2}.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > is a change in behaviour and should be enabled using a new
> > namespace.
> > > Of
> > > > > > course you could just reversion the namespace from v1.x to v2 as
> a
> > > > > breaking
> > > > > > change, but we would need to support both versions of the schema.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As with Tim I would currently -1 any release of blueprint 3.2
> until
> > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > addressed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alasdair
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Rex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Adding a namespace for this function elegantly solves both
> > these
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > a way that is consistent with other blueprint extensions, and
> I
> > > think
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > essential before this function can be released.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tim
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:58:22 +0800
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Release Discussion] ship maintenance releases
> > of
> > > > > > > > application-0.2.2 / util-0.2.1 / blueprint-0.3.2 ?
> > > > > > > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I still think adding a new namespace only for such simple
> > > > > calculation
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > heavy and not consumalbe for users..
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, could anybody help with the release of *
> > > > > > > > > org.apache.aries.application/0.2.2-SNAPSHOT* *and
> > > > > > > > > org.apache.aries.util/0.2.1-SNAPSHOT* first? or chould
> anyone
> > > help
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > I can not deploy artifacts to apache.snapshot? Maybe I can
> > try
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > the 2
> > > > > > > > > components. Geronimo does not have much time targeting the
> > > 3.0-beta
> > > > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Rex
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2011/9/7 Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we release blueprint as is we will never be able to
> make
> > > the
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > would cause a major breaking change. I think we need to
> get
> > > this
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > before a release is done.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 6 September 2011 04:37, Rex Wang <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2011/9/6 Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 September 2011 07:41, Valentin Mahrwald <
> > > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments inline :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 31 Aug 2011, at 20:02, Alasdair Nottingham
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for being slow I'm on holiday with
> > limited
> > > > > access
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > email.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The goal (I thought) was to ensure that the
> support
> > > for
> > > > > > > ${a+b}
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > optional. When we make it optional we have two
> > > problems:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. How do we make it optional (usually gate any
> > > call
> > > > > with
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Class.forName check to ensures we can load a
> > > class.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. How do we fail when the support isn't there
> > and
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first problem is trivial to fix, the latter
> is
> > > harder
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > define.
> > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > isn't until you build the bean that you find the
> > > ${a+b}
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with lazy activation that could take a while. I
> > would
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have ${a+b} in use, and the apache-jexl bundle is
> > not
> > > > > > > present,
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > creation would most likely fail (or you would get
> > the
> > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > behaviour).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is obviously not desirable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > An alternative would be to make use of the
> default
> > > > > > behaviour
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > blueprint
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for namespace extensions. By using a separate
> > > namespace
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > indicate
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > desire to use this behaviour blueprint will delay
> > > > > > > > initialisation of
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bundle's blueprint container until the namespace
> is
> > > > > > > available.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > result
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be if apache-jexl is not present the
> > namespace
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > registered and the blueprint container would not
> be
> > > > > > > configured.
> > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > addition
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can now register the namesake when
> apache-jexl
> > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowing it to be brought up later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that this definitely the right way to go.
> In
> > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > > > though
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it might be quite a bit tricky to implement.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In particular I am wondering how to link the usage
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > extended
> > > > > > > > > > > > property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > replacement syntax to a namespace reference. I can
> > > think of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the following ways to do this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Have two different property placeholder
> brackets
> > > like
> > > > > > > ${...}
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > non-arithmetic one and $[...] for the one doing
> > > arithmetic.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > second
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one is defined via a tag from the new namespace.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > b) Support property placeholders only if we can
> > support
> > > the
> > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > shebang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (which is kind of step back?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > c) Have a kind of unrelated namespace import which
> we
> > > check
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > decide whether to do arithmetic (that could be
> quite
> > > > > > > non-obvious
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > user).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The blueprint specification says any non-standard
> > > extensions
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > blueprint
> > > > > > > > > > > > must be enabled via namespace handlers. I don't like
> > the
> > > ext
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > cm
> > > > > > > > > > > > namespaces to require apache-jexl since it means more
> > > > > > > dependencies
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > pulled in when they may never be used.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alasdair,
> > > > > > > > > > > Since the current code does not hard depend on the
> > > > > commons-jexl,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > the only difference from your desire is adding a new
> > > namespace
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > delay the blueprint container initialization if the
> > > > > commons-jexl
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > present,
> > > > > > > > > > > I consider this as an improvement to the current
> > solution.
> > > And
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > think it
> > > > > > > > > > > would be better to let user hold the option that if he
> > > would
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > namespace, and if he don't use it, the ${a+b} can still
> > > work.
> > > > > > Hope
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > current solution meets the criteria to start release..
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BTW, seems Aries community is not that active in last
> two
> > > > > month.
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > still a release manager help the release works?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -Rex
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at your options a) doesn't work because it
> > isn't
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > namespace
> > > > > > > > > > > > handlers, b) sucks big time and would mean to meat
> the
> > > spec
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > apache-jexl and the whole point is to allow the spec
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > > > > without apache-jexl being required. So I think
> > something
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > option c
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be gone for. For instance you could add an
> > > attribute
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > non-standard namespace that says to enable this
> > > capability.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is any of that what you were thinking of?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that make any sense?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alasdair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 30 August 2011 07:36, Rex Wang <
> > [email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry, I will add the corresponding tests. But I
> > am
> > > not
> > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> your suggestion in Aries-727 of "use a
> different
> > > > > > namespace
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > ext
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> one". The current implement add the ability to
> > > > > > > blueprint-ext
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> blueprint-cm, because the CmPropertyPlaceholder
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > > > subclass of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> PropertyPlaceholder. Could a different namespace
> > > handle
> > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> After the change is final, will definitely port
> it
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > trunk.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Rex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2011/8/30 Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'm not happy with the current fix for
> ARIES-727.
> > > There
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I commented on the bug the dependency on jexl
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > > optional
> > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be. It also doesn't exist in trunk which is
> > > dangerous.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > affects
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> programming model so it needs to be right.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Alasdair Nottingham
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 29 Aug 2011, at 23:17, Rex Wang <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi Devs,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Geronimo 3.0-beta has passed the Java EE 6
> full
> > > > > profile
> > > > > > > tck,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> going
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to release soon. But some dependencies are
> from
> > > Aries
> > > > > > > > project,
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> requesting your supports to release the
> > following
> > > 3
> > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> important fixes to our users. Could anybody
> > please
> > > > > help?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> *1.
> > **org.apache.aries.application/0.2.2-SNAPSHOT*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-521: handles zip files without directory
> > > entries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-635: Move the resource bundle to the
> right
> > > > > > directory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-638: Logging improvements for
> > > > > > > > AriesApplicationManagerImpl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-667: OBRAriesResolver can return bundle
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > bundles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> higher version than expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-689: Application OBR resolution fails
> for
> > > > > optional
> > > > > > > > imports
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-734: Back port improvements made to
> > > resolution
> > > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > messages
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> OBR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> application resolver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> *2. org.apache.aries.util/0.2.1-SNAPSHOT*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-667: OBRAriesResolver can return bundle
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > bundles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> higher version than expected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> *3. org.apache.aries.blueprint/0.3.2-SNAPSHOT*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARIES-727 support syntax : ${a+b} in
> > blueprint-ext
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Lei Wang (Rex)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> rwonly AT apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Lei Wang (Rex)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rwonly AT apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alasdair Nottingham
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alasdair Nottingham
> > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Lei Wang (Rex)
> > > > > > > > > > > rwonly AT apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Alasdair Nottingham
> > > > > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Lei Wang (Rex)
> > > > > > > > > rwonly AT apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Lei Wang (Rex)
> > > > > > > rwonly AT apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Alasdair Nottingham
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Lei Wang (Rex)
> > > > > rwonly AT apache.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alasdair Nottingham
> > > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alasdair Nottingham
> > [email protected]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org
>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
[email protected]
