Leo Simons wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
On CVS
avalon-sandbox
Because its early, needs more work on doc, more structural separation, and probably one alternative transport to AltRMI - but these things can be addressed in a release early and often pattern. Being in sandbox should not prevent a release - its simply positions the product as new and emerging and not at final release status (at least this is what I would like to see).
uhm, fortress has a dependency on instrument, ecm too. You can't be serious about releasing those and having instrument in sandbox, can you?
Hi Leo:
I'm not concerned about the place so much as the status of the product. Personally I don't see any problem with a beta product release of something in sandbox. I do see a problem if we release as is without going through a beta period. That beta period would enable us to move forward on the items I mentioned above. For example - I would envisage a non-beta release of the instrument suite corresponding to something documented and deployable on a backbone of released products. If getting a non-beta release out is critical (which is not my impression) I could look at putting an IIOP transport connector in place.
that said, we could look at removing the deps, if it makes people happy.
What about updating Fortress and ECM to make instrumentation a soft dependency - i.e. if its not present in the build or runtime classloader - then its not build/loaded? There is also the potential for seperating the instrument package into a lifecycle extension and handler which would make the soft dependency approach relatively easy.
Cheers, Steve.
cheers,
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
