On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present an better organized >> view of the efforts to enable OSGi for Tuscany runtime even though we had >> scattered information from E-mails and wiki pages before. After I briefly >> went through the commit log for the sca-equinox branch and some of the >> discussions, I added the following wiki page which hopefully will give us >> the level of details for clarification: >> >> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/OSGi+Enablement+for+Tuscany+Runtime >> >> We can probably use the Tuscany IRC to discuss any questions in this area >> that require real-time interactions (see >> http://tuscany.apache.org/getting-involved.html to set up your IRC if you >> haven't used it before). I will be logging into the channel. Please feel >> free to ping me there. >> >> Thanks, >> Raymond >> >> > Hi Raymond > > That's perfect. A great summary. All we have to do then is review and merge > the trunk and equinox branch changes and understand how these principles > impact the code we know and love and we're set to have the > calculator-equinox sample running. > > Simon > Looking back over this thread we seem to have thrashed around a bit on this last point. 1, 2 and 3 From Raymond's list.. 1. Start with an empty trunk. 2. Try a best-effort merge to pull the delta from 1.x branch into sca-equinox branch (potentially leave some hard-to-merge changes to the bringup phase) 3. Copy the sca-equinox branch into the new trunk and move modules into "java/sca/contrib" I.e. whether we should start from branch or trunk code. I'm willing to put in some effort to try the merge based on what is in trunk now going module by module for the minimum set we identified on this thread and use this exercise to review the changes on a ML thread based on the principles Raymond has outlined on the wiki [1]. Lets take a checkpoint later today and if this proves too problematic then the fallback is to take the branch as is and do the merge in reverse. I'll start a thread specifically for the merge/review so anyone who is interested can contribute. Regards Simon [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/OSGi+Enablement+for+Tuscany+Runtime
