I updated the NOTICE file generation to use the recommended remote-
resources plugin techniques.
I would still like to see something change on:
1. I still think that the spec xsds need to be in the spec jar and
nowhere else and available from the spec jar. I haven't understood
any arguments about why this requires more than one copy or why its a
bad idea. Why should an alternative blueprint implementation that
wants to use our api jar need to include its own copy of the schema?
2. I see that the core and cm bundles don't import what they export.
Not importing what you export still makes be extremely uneasy. Maybe
one can argue that the cm bundle is a library since it doesn't appear
to export any services or have a bundle activator, but the core bundle
is surely not a library since it registers a bundle listener. Unless
there is clear harm in importing what we export I would really prefer
to follow this principle everywhere and couple it with careful version
specification in imports and exports.
3. I'm pretty unhappy with the maven project names at the moment. I'd
prefer to see them go back to simple names and use the bundle plugin
default behavior to generate the bundle symbolic names to include the
org.apache.geronimo fluff.
I also got an itest failure trying to build but haven't investigated
yet.
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Just committed some changes.
Please review and I'll upload a new release asap.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 21:05, Kevan Miller <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 17:54, Kevan Miller <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I've uploaded a new 1.0.0 release of the blueprint project.
I think I've addressed all the issues raised in the discussion
thread.
The staging repository is available at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/geronimo-staging-054/
The corresponding tag is available at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/blueprint/tags/blueprint-1.0.0/
Please review and vote:
[ ] +1 Release
[ ] -1 Do not release
The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
The following files do not contain apache source license headers.
./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/
container/package.html
./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/
container/packageinfo
./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/reflect/
package.html
./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/reflect/
packageinfo
Those come straight from the blueprint OSGi from the osgi alliance
afaik.
I can add them with the OSGi alliance copyright, but I'm not even
sure
what's the comments syntax for the packageinfo file
OK. I should have noticed that these were in blueprint-api. I would
not add
anything to them.
./blueprint-core/src/main/resources/OSGI-INF/permissions.perm
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/cache.xsd
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-bad-id-ref.xml
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-constructor.xml
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-depends-on.xml
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-generics.xml
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-simple-component.xml
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-wiring.xml
./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test.xml
./blueprint-sample/src/main/resources/OSGI-INF/blueprint/config.xml
Those need to be fixed, right.
Unless convinced otherwise, I think those must be fixed.
The README should be updated to not reference 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT.
Also, the
README instructions do not reference the correct maven groupid/
artifactid
for blueprint bundles:
Current:
file:///<m2_repo>/org/apache/geronimo/blueprint-bundle/1.0.0-
SNAPSHOT/blueprint-bundle-1.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
Should be:
file:///<m2_repo/org/apache/geronimo/blueprint/
org.apache.geronimo.blueprint.bundle/1.0.0/
org.apache.geronimo.blueprint.bundle-1.0.0.jar
Yeah, the REAME is outdated. I'll have a look.
Let me know, and I can update, if you want. Strings are still in my
emacs
buffer... ;-)
Was there any NOTICE information associated with the original OSGi
Alliance
source? If so, it might need to be moved over...
I haven't seen any NOTICE files from the OSGi Alliance, but will
double check to make sure.
Thanks.
--kevan
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
