ant elder 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
I've tried a number of samples related to Atom and HTTP bindings, etc.
It all seems to run for me. Also I did a clean and build, and it all
builds cleanly for me.
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
