I agree, 1.1 is the best version. I'm not sure I want to try to get the appropriate tck tests running in 2.2, but if anyone else is game.....
thanks david jencks On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > So why not release it as version=1.1 and we'll spin a 1.1.1 if more > updates are required? Not sure why we need to version it as a Milestone > release.... Is there a TCK required? If so, why not upgrade 2.1.5 or > 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT to use the new level and verify it still passes the Java > EE 5 TCKs? > > -Donald > > > On 4/21/10 6:33 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> I think I've done everything I want to for now with yoko as far as getting >> it running in osgi. It would be great if someone wanted to review it, >> otherwise I think its time to start trying to release it. >> >> BTW, we're going to have problems with osgi and milestones, since e.g. >> 3.0.M1 is after 3.0. Similarly for yoko, 1.1.M! is after 1.1. So I think >> this release should be 1.1.M! and when we get all the interop stuff to work >> we can release 1.2. >> >> Basically what I did is to steal Rick's locator code from the specs, but >> register stuff through blueprint rather than scanning bundles. I also added >> a priority to make it easier to predict which class you'd end up with. I >> also tried to locate every place a class is loaded dynamically in yoko and >> have it use the locator. >> >> This seems to allow configuring your orb completely through these blueprint >> beans, rather than supplying a properties file with the service name to >> class mapping. This has been one of my goals for yoko for a long time, >> although I don't know if anyone else thinks it's valuable. >> >> thanks >> david jencks
