-- Forwarded message --
From: Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Dec 29, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
On Dec 28, 2007 4:00 PM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implementation-bpel was OK. I
[snip]
Simon Laws wrote:
Looking at what we have at the moment the main issue I'm having is with
Saxon. implementation-bpel depends on 8.7 and other parts of Tuscany, e.g.
xml-bigbank, have a dependency on 9.0.0.2. I tried bringing
implementation-bpel up to 9.0.0.2 with no luck. Is there
On Jan 2, 2008 7:04 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Simon Laws wrote:
Looking at what we have at the moment the main issue I'm having is with
Saxon. implementation-bpel depends on 8.7 and other parts of Tuscany,
e.g.
xml-bigbank, have a dependency on 9.0.0.2.
On Dec 28, 2007 4:00 PM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implementation-bpel was OK. I have added implementation-widget and
implementation-data-api.
On Dec 28, 2007 4:59 AM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded,
Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded,
implementation-data-api should not either as it's being used in the
store tutorial scenario. Let me check if I can fix this on the
distribution files...
On Dec 27, 2007 7:51 PM, haleh mahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank
Implementation-bpel was OK. I have added implementation-widget and
implementation-data-api.
On Dec 28, 2007 4:59 AM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded,
implementation-data-api should not either as it's being used in the
store
Hi Simon,
Thank you for trying to get a release candidate ready during the holidays.
Why is implementation.bpel excluded?
Haleh
On 12/21/07, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon,
No, I don't have an ID yet. Please
On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon,
No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.
Thank you...
Regards,
Rajini
On 12/19/07, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon,
There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading changes
to
the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany to be
run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By
On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Following Ant's question,
JSONRPC references
Is this done now?
The work on JSONRPC references was related to the Widget
implementation, and the ability to specify references on a Web 2.0
client application. This is ready and demonstrated in the store
scenario.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:09 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
considering we would still
On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
would continue on trunk or on
I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution structure
changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening with
jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this year
to continue development though right?
...ant
On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM,
Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th, I'd
recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant
On Dec 12, 2007 8:22 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution structure
changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening with
jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this
year
to
On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th, I'd
recommend continue on
I would like to use the holiday period to work on fixing up the
contents of the release. I don't intend to work on anything that
would not be part of the release. It would be easier for me to
do this work in trunk.
Simon
Simon Laws wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende [EMAIL
Hi
Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level areas that
I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to go for
release 1.1.
Deep tomcat integration
Better JMS support
JAXB based POJO transformations.
More policy function
Modeling of client side java
@ws.apache.org; tuscany-user
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?
Hi
Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level areas
that
I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to go
20 matches
Mail list logo
