I'll update the specs wrt imported packages and version policy. Do you have a list of the specs that you intend to release ?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 21:07, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > I also think all the osgi imported packages should have a version range up > to the next major version. Currently, those are defined as unbounded range > up to infinity is problematic if we have in the future a new incompatible > major version. > > Also, I wonder if the org.apache.geronimo.osgi.registry.api package is > really optional ? Will the specs still be usable if this package is not > present at all ? > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 20:46, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Have the specs jars been tested in both a non osgi environment and an osgi >> environment ? >> Also, i'd like to have the scripting api and rest api osgi-fied the same >> way. We'd need them in servicemix, and given you have rewritten the specs >> to support osgi, i don't see the need to maintain the servicemix ones >> anymore. >> Also, I think there is an unresolved JIRA issue (GERONIMO-3960) about the >> imported packages (they should not import their own packages). >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 19:30, Rick McGuire <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If we wish to release a milestone soon, we need to start getting the >>> different subcomponents released fairly quickly. Here are the things I >>> believe we need to have release votes on: >>> >>> 1) New spec components. These need to be done first, and should >>> probably done as a single vote rather than trying to schedule a vote for >>> each of the jars. >>> 2) New javamail jar (should probably done concurrently with the javamail >>> spec). >>> 3) New xmlbeans schema jar releases (java ee 1.4, java ee 5, and java ee >>> 6 versions) >>> 4) New components jars >>> 5) New yoko jars >>> 6) New tomcat ext jars >>> >>> For 1), I think these are ready to go. I believe the issue of the >>> package exports has been resolved as far as it can be for the 3.1 M1 >>> release. The jpa and servlet specs will be exporting dual version levels >>> because the need to line up with different implementations that are not >>> conforming to the OSGi specs yet. This seems like a workable solution, at >>> least for the short term. I believe all of our specs are currently passing >>> the signature tests, so they look clean there. If I don't hear any >>> objections, I'll start staging these for release tomorrow morning. >>> >>> The one spec there might be a concern about is the ccpp spec jar. This >>> is used in the pluto support currently, but we don't currently have a TCK to >>> validate this one. I need some opinions on how to proceed with that jar. >>> For now, I'll not be submitting this one for a vote with the rest of the >>> specs. >>> >>> What state are the rest of these in? I suspect yoko is not stable enough >>> currently since David Jencks is currently working on getting the Corba >>> support working. We might want to delay the tomcat external release as long >>> as we can in case we require some patches. "As long as we can" is probably >>> not more than a week. The xmlbeans schema jars are probably pretty stable >>> and capable of being released now. >>> >>> Are the components in any shape that release votes can be started? Here >>> are the components we need to release: >>> >>> - geronimo-connector >>> - geronmo-transaction >>> - geronimo-jaspi >>> >>> This will need to be handled fairly soon too. >>> >>> Rick >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> Open Source SOA >> http://fusesource.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
