On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:31 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ant elder wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: >>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws >>>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new >>>>>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix >>>>>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes? >>>>>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x >>>>>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a >>>>>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting >>>>>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to >>>>>>>> coordinate >>>>>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases? >>>>>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively >>>>>>>> easy >>>>>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do >>>>>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an >>>>>>>> easy >>>>>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by >>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and >>>>>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...ant >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from >>>>>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if >>>>>>>> anyone >>>>>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a >>>>>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into >>>>>>>> 1.3.x. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later >>>>>>> today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1. >>>>>> >>>>>> TUSCANY-2534 >>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1? >>>>>> TUSCANY-2514 >>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1? >>>>>> TUSCANY-2542 >>>>>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1 >>>>>> >>>>>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Simon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so >>>>> i'll do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday, >>>>> >>>>> ...ant >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at >>>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/>and >>>> a tag at >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/ >>>> >>>> I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look >>>> at starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday. >>>> >>>> ...ant >>>> >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I tried a good selection of samples and demos and all is fine on the >>> command line and in Tomcat. However we haven't solved all of the issues with >>> WebSphere classloading. It seems that there some scenarios where the change >>> to remove dependencies on xml-apis, xerces and xalan (TUSCANY-2534) causes >>> other problems that I'm still investigating. >>> >>> Simon >>> >> >> With the additional fix to TUSCANY-2534 in r687572 the WS samples are >> running fine in WebSphere for me, can you confirm this fixes it for you? >> >> The only issue i have left is running the Dave's ejb sample from >> http://apache.markmail.org/message/rpjlc5iaal6neabj. This mostly doesn't >> work for me getting a Java class verify error. It seems slightly >> intermittent as it did work once but usually doesn't, converting the EJB >> back to use the SCADomain API and it always works fine. I don't think this >> is a blocker for 1.3.1 >> >> ...ant >> >> >> > > Ok, am updating/compiling now. Will let you know shortly. > > Simon > Here's what I found for latest 1.3.1 calculator-webapp Tomcat 6 - Works out of the box WebSphere 6.1 - Works out of the box calculator-ws-webapp Tomcat 6 - Works out of the box WebSphere 6.1 - Works out of the box Dave's EJB app WebSphere 6.1 - Works out of the box I wasn't expecting the EJB app to work as I've tried this combination before to no avail. So maybe I'm seeing the same intermittent behaviour that you are. I can try SCA Domain also and confirm that that works for me. On the basis that we have a work round I suggest you roll RC1 and start a vote. We can take a look at this possible node issue in slow time in trunk. Dave, feel free to pitch in if ths sounds problematic. Simon
