Hi Jeremy, No changes in the moment. The sources are the same as zip attached to the initial ProSyst contribution. The only change are the name of teh package.
-Pavlin JV> Have there been any changes to the DS implementation since the initial JV> drop to bugs.eclipse.org? We've been using that one and have been JV> running into some blocker synchronization issues, primarily deadlocks. JV> I outlined the issues a while back in bug #186280. JV> -Jeremy JV> On 7/8/07, Pavlin Dobrev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> SK> That's great! I've just done a quick sanity check and everything >> compiles, >> SK> starts and is ready to try out. >> >> Also all services passes the coresponding OSGi Release 4.1 test cases. >> >> SK> Thanks. >> >> SK> For anyone wanting to take a look, the following new projects were added >> to >> SK> the incubator. >> >> SK> 1) org.eclipse.equinox.ds >> SK> 2) org.eclipse.equinox.io >> SK> 3) org.eclipse.equinox.ip >> SK> 4) org.eclipse.equinox.util >> SK> 5) org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin >> >> SK> I had one cosmetic question for equinox.util. Currently the BSN is >> SK> "org.eclipse.equinox.util.putifull" -- is there some reason it's not just >> SK> org.eclipse.equinox.util? >> >> Because I do a lot of refeactoring there may be some ProSyst stuff >> left inside. The name org.eclipse.equinox.util.putifull is used in our >> OSGi implementation. I'll change it to the equinox one. >> >> -Pavlin >> >> >> SK> -Simon >> >> SK> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/07/2007 06:41:23 AM: >> >> >> In CVS under your proposed naming. >> >> >> >> -Pavlin >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> OK, I'm not particular about the names right now. Since we already >> >> have a DS bundle lets just use org.eclipse.equinox.ds for >> >> declarative services. >> >> >> >> I also like org.eclipse.equinox.ip for initial provisioning but >> >> thought it might be to short :) but it is snappy. >> >> >> >> Pavlin, if these are ok with you please release with the names org. >> >> eclipse.equinox.ds and org.eclipse.equinox.ip. As I said before it >> >> is no big deal to rename the bundles if needed in the incubator later. >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> Chris Aniszczyk/Austin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> 07/05/2007 09:34 PM >> >> >> >> Please respond to >> >> Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> To >> >> >> >> Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> cc >> >> >> >> Subject >> >> >> >> Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions >> >> >> >> as an outsider, +1 for DS instead of SCR, there's like 5 people that >> >> would get the SCR reference :) >> >> >> >> initialprovisioning is really long.... >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | http://mea-bloga. >> >> blogspot.com | +1.860.839.2465 >> >> >> >> [image removed] Jeff McAffer ---07/05/2007 09:13:02 PM---I agree >> >> with all/most Tom said. In the end we should look to have just one >> >> DS implementation, Ultimately I suggest that it be >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> From: >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> Jeff McAffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> To: >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> Date: >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> 07/05/2007 09:13 PM >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> Subject: >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions >> >> >> >> I agree with all/most Tom said. In the end we should look to have >> >> just one DS implementation, Ultimately I suggest that it be called >> >> o.e.e.ds. Never did like "scr". I'm a little bummed by o.e.e. >> >> initialprovisioning. o.e.e.ip is snappier and I doubt that anyone >> >> would get confused with Intelectual property, or Internet Protocol >> >> or, ... In any event, it is a mild dislike so... >> >> >> >> Lets get the code in the incubator and move forward. >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> Thomas Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> 07/05/2007 03:51 PM >> >> >> >> Please respond to >> >> Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> To >> >> >> >> Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> cc >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> >> >> Subject >> >> >> >> Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> >> >> [image removed] >> >> >> >> > Hi Simon, >> >> > >> >> > I can commit the sources in the CVS. Here are the open issues >> >> > that should be resolved prior moving code to the CVS. >> >> > >> >> > 1. Naming. >> >> > Following the discussion the last proposed naming is: >> >> > 1.1 org.eclipse.equionx.initialprovisioning >> >> > other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.ip >> >> >> >> +1 for org.eclipse.equinox.initialprovisioning >> >> >> >> I think this name will reduce an confusion with the >> >> rest of the equinox provisioning work. >> >> >> >> > 1.2 org.eclipse.equionx.ds >> >> > other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.scr >> >> >> >> +1 for org.eclipse.equinox.scr >> >> >> >> > 1.3 org.eclipse.equinox.io >> >> > 1.4 org.eclipse.equinox.util >> >> > 1.5 org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin >> >> > >> >> > 2. Replacing. If we use the names org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin and >> >> > org.eclipse.equionx.ds they collide with the current one. Can we >> SK> replace >> >> > the code in the CVS at this stage directly or temporary other names >> >> > will be used? >> >> >> >> There is no problem replacing the current implementations in the >> >> incubator. To be clear this is under the equinox-incubator directory >> >> at dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/eclipse. At this point I suggest we >> >> get the initial code released in the incubator. It is likely that >> >> a number of refactorings are going be needed to follow other >> >> eclipse coding practices (i.e. using "internal" package names etc.). >> >> >> >> I'm not fussed on getting all the names correct initially. We >> >> can easily rename them if needed in the incubator. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > 3. javax.microedition.io package >> >> > Now it is in Connector services implementation. This is not a good >> >> > choice because it is needed only on Java SE VMs. J2ME VMs >> >> > contains that package. In our equinox distribution it is a fragment of >> >> > the system bundle that is installed only on Java SE VMs. >> >> > But initially we can put it inside the connector implementation. >> >> > >> >> > -Pavlin >> >> > >> >> >> >> I think we should consider separating this out into another bundle and >> >> import the packages from org.eclipse.equinox.io (but we can do this >> SK> later). >> >> I'm not sure why it has to be a system bundle fragment. I think we >> SK> should >> >> make it a normal bundle (called javax.microedition.io?). >> >> >> >> Tom _______________________________________________ >> >> equinox-dev mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> equinox-dev mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> equinox-dev mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> equinox-dev mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> >> >> >> SK> __________ NOD32 2383 (20070706) Information __________ >> >> SK> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >> SK> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> equinox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
