Hi, I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for M3.
Is anyone already started working on this item, please let me know. On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:25 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> 2.x is becoming active again so what are people hoping to get done for > >> M3? I'm interested in continuing to enhance the level of OASIS support > >> we have so to that end I took a look at the OSOA vs OASIS page [1] to > >> try and identify the big items that need fixing. The following jump > >> out... > >> > >> Assembly - based on spec JIRA [2] > >> ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57 > >> All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up > >> our endpoint support) > >> > >> ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution > >> Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring > >> > >> ASSEMBLY-79 wireFormat/operationSelector > >> Need to bring in binding wire support from 1.x > >> Could bring in binding.jms or > >> > >> OASIS also have the spec compliance tests done now so we can > >> exploit those to see how many we could get running. I know Kelvin has > >> been trying them out but I don't know how many need to be fixed. > >> > >> Other things that have been bouncing around the list recently and > >> which would be good to get on with.... > >> > >> Binding.ws > >> A reorg here has just been mentioned on another thread and would > >> motivate us to bring in the binding wire and also get policy working. > >> > >> Java - spec only just going out now so no tests yet > >> SCA client > >> API changes and simplification > >> > >> Policy > >> Model is in place > >> Runtime code needs doing > >> > >> Other > >> Error handling > >> I notice from some of his recent posts that Mike is getting > >> frustrated by the lack of context we provide in out error messages, > >> i.e. which composite/component/binding etc. is being processed. > >> Now would be a good time to improve that > >> We could also take the opportunity to refresh the validation > >> tests and locate then with the module being tested rather than being > >> in one large itest. > >> > >> Backward compatibility > >> I've just started to look at this again to see what we could do. > >> > >> Anything here that sparks your interest? Alternatively what other > >> things would be good to get into M3? > >> > > > > There's a lot in that list so i'm wondering how much of it we need to > > get done for M3 or how long we want to take before doing M3. Its now 6 > > weeks since M2 and we did say we'd try to do 2.x releases every six > > weeks, so how about aiming for a release in a couple of weeks and just > > seeing what gets done? > > > > There's already a reasonable amount of new stuff done as mentioned in > > the CHANGES file, one thing I'd really like to try to make some > > progress on the Node endpoint service registry stuff we've talked > > about in other threads and be able to show that working in the tomcat > > deep integration. There's also still some finishing up needed for > > module refactoring still to be done, and to tidy up the webapp samples > > and archetypes that didn't make it into M2. And all those things would > > likley fill up a couple of weeks. > > > > ..ant > > > > +1 we're not going to get it all in M3. In light of some of the recent > domain conversations I agree it would be good to have a go at > finishing the Endpoint changes and the related items below if we can > > ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57 > All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up > our endpoint support) > > ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution > Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring > > Would be a good few to tick off > > Simon > -- Thanks & Regards, Ramkumar Ramalingam
