Should we remove conversation support from our 2.0-M1 ? On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:01 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok thats done, SCA-J are doing the same - > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00096.html > > ...ant > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sounds reasonable, we can post back here with the SCA-J TC outcome. >> >> ...ant >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Mark Combellack <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi ant, >>> >>> I would suggest holding off from removing Conversational Service from >>> Tuscany 2.x for a few days. The reason is that SCA Assembly has agreed to >>> remove them but the same decision has not yet been made in SCA Java since >>> SCA Java has not had a call since SCA Assembly made this decision. >>> >>> It would seem likely that SCA Java would also remove Conversational >>> Services >>> too but it may be worth waiting for the formal decision. >>> >>> As co-chair of SCA-J TC, I plan to add an item on the agenda to discuss >>> this >>> for the next Java call on Friday. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: ant elder [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > Sent: 21 January 2009 11:44 >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: SCA conversations being removed from specs >>> > >>> > An interesting resolution at the SCA Assembly TC yesterday - support >>> > for >>> > conversational services is being dropped - see resolution 2009-01-20-2 >>> > at: >>> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200901/msg00066.html >>> > >>> > Guess that means we should look at cleaning up all this code in the 2.x >>> > codebase. >>> > >>> > ...ant >>> > >>> >>> >> > >
-- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
