Thanks for the clarification. The staging approach sounds good to me.
Raymond
From: Simon Laws
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:20 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Tuscany 2.0 themes?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting. I agree we are talking about some potential "big" features in
the 2.x development stream.
On the other hand, is release 2.0 required to be super set of what we have
in 1.x? Does it have to include all the "big" themes we are proposing. IMO,
the themes can be delivered via one or more incremental 2.x releases. In
some cases, even one theme will deserve to have a release.
Thanks,
Raymond
From: Simon Laws
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:45 PM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Tuscany 2.0 themes?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having themes with major releases is a good idea.
Here are a few themes I have in mind:
* OSGi enablement with clean SPI and modularity
* Consistent SCA domain story (deployment and management)
* QoS: Improved Policy Framework with transaction and security
* JEE/SCA integration
Thanks,
Raymond
From: Simon Laws
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:11 AM
To: tuscany-dev
Subject: [DISCUSS] Tuscany 2.0 themes?
We've agreed that we are going to develop OASIS compliant function in trunk.
I just started a discussion on what the starting point is. But what are the
themes for trunk up to the 2.0 release? What would we hope to be announcing
in the release notes that are going to get people excited? What are this
things that are going to make the code base easier to work with?
OASIS is clearly on the list. Ant's survey should help. But what else?
IMO this is not really about a detailed shopping list of code changes but
more about themes (as per the thread title), i.e. more the what than the
how.
Regards
Simon
I was pinged off list about why I was suggesting an imminent 2.0 release. I
tried to pick my words quite carefully in starting this thread but obviously
not carefully enough. I'm not pushing any particular timescale for a 2.0
release but simply suggesting that we work out what is on the roadmap that
takes us to 2.0. I would imagine that in order to get to 2.0 we will go
through a number of iterations and alpha/beta release. So what do we want to
do and what order do we need to do it in to get to 2.0 eventually is the
question on the table here;-)
Simon
Oh dear. I seem to be struggling to convey a point here. I imagined a 2.0
release out in the future some time that demonstrated OASIS compliance and a
reasonable set of the improvements being described here. Maybe I should have
called it 2.x as I don't mind if we get there through a sequence of releases
such as
2.0 -> 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 2.3 -> 2.4 -> 2.5 etc
or a sequence such as
2.0-M1 -> 2.0-M2 -> 2.0-M3 -> 2.0-Alpha -> 2.0-Beta -> 2.0
I had actually imagined the latter but I don't really mind. What I would
like to understand is what the steps are we think we need to go through in
order to declare victory re. the pieces of work we agree on in this thread.
Any clearer? The joy of the written word!
Simon
