Well, I have two thoughts... :-) 1) Getting something out soon is a great idea. Doesn't really matter to me if its 0.9 or 1.0. Almost want to say 1.0 with a release note documenting the known issue.
However..... 2) I'm thinking about 2.2.1 builds on April 20th (although I could EASILY be convinced to go earlier). Would it make sense to base it on that? Dan On Mon April 6 2009 9:42:21 am [email protected] wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been doing some work regarding CXF-1966, removing the Equinox > jars and moving the system tests to use Felix 1.4.1. It now works with > Spring 1.2.0-rc2-SNAPSHOT. > > As Eoghan says, there is still the missing functionality around the > versions in the ServicePublication. The impact here is that if you > have a service that exposes interface A version 1 and a consumer has > interface A version 2, while these 2 are binary incompatible, the > system is not capable of telling that there is a mismatch. The current > code base simply assumes that they are compatible... > > While this is a gap that needs to be fixed, it might still be worth > doing some sort of a release, as what's there today is quite useful in > itself. Maybe we shouldn't call it 1.0, but something like 0.9 > instead? > Having a release out there means that folks can start using this > without having to depend on SNAPSHOT jars. > > My understanding is that Spring 1.2.0 will be out some day this week. > I think it would be good do to a release of some sort at that stage... > > Thoughts anyone? > > David > > 2009/3/26 Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>: > > Hi David > > > > I agree. CXF 2.2.1 should not be far away - perhaps in 4 weeks or 5 weeks > > but with the TCK work 'looming' I'd probably not want to ask you to > > postpone a release and find myself telling you later on ' I won't make it > > :-)'. DOSGI users do need a release so I agree with what you suggested > > > > thanks, Sergey > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:26 PM > > Subject: Re: Working towards a DOSGi 1.0 release > > > >> Great to hear about the JAXRS component for DOSGi, Sergey! > >> > >> What is the expected release timeframe of CXF 2.2.1? > >> If its a bit further out, why not do a DOSGi 1.0 release based on CXF > >> 2.2 and then do another 1.1 release with the JAXRS stuff as soon as > >> 2.2.1 is out? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> David > >> > >> 2009/3/26 Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm quite keen to emded a JAXRS component into DOSGI as I reckon we now > >>> have > >>> all the pieces in place (proxy based client api support, and Benson's > >>> Aegis > >>> provider) so it should, fingers crossed, be a fairly straighforward > >>> exercise > >>> - but then you never know what could actually happen at the development > >>> time > >>> > >>> :-) The only missing thing is that cxf-minimal bundle would need to be > >>> > >>> upgraded to keep a jaxrs component (+ 250K - which may not be too bad) > >>> - but > >>> it will be released in 2.2.1 only so DOSGI release would need to be > >>> postponed until then - so perhaps such an enhancement can be done later > >>> on.... > >>> > >>> Cheers, Sergey > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Since CXF 2.2 is out now I was thinking about what work needs to be > >>>> done for a DOSGi 1.0 release. > >>>> > >>>> I've just updated the poms to depend on CXF 2.2, but there's still a > >>>> few things to do... > >>>> > >>>> * there is CXF-1966. It would be good to get a solution to this. I > >>>> heard that Spring-DM 1.2.0 is going to be released within 2 weeks and > >>>> that version should work with Felix 1.4.1, so I'm considering removing > >>>> the checked in Equinox jar and moving to 1.2.0-RC1 using Felix for the > >>>> moment until we can depend on Spring-DM 1.2.0. Are folks generally ok > >>>> with that? Once Equinox 3.5 is released, maybe we can add it back in > >>>> to system test runs as a second platform, by obtaining it from maven > >>>> or wget or something once its available in a fixed place... > >>>> * We need to make sure that all the API's we are using are exactly > >>>> correct with the lasted RFC 119 version, e.g. I think we need to add > >>>> something to the ServicePublication interface... > >>>> > >>>> Anything else we need to think of? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> David -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
