Re: 0.4

2011-06-29 Thread Oliver Lietz
Am Wednesday 29 June 2011 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: The pom clearly works since we build the bundle correctly using it. I'm betting you are trying to use it in a way we didn't intend so can you provide information on what you are doing so we can look into it? haha - nice one. Is there a

Re: 0.4

2011-06-29 Thread David Jencks
Hi Oliver one more comment :-) On Jun 29, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Oliver Lietz wrote: Am Wednesday 29 June 2011 schrieb David Jencks: Hi Oliver, hi David, maven != osgi. I think the document about how the bundle is intended to be used is the bundle manifest. The pom is there to build

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Bengt Rodehav
Thanks for your reply Alasdair, Reading the documentation about the JPA support it seems like in 0.4, it is no longer necessary to list all classes in the persistence.xml. That's an improvement I'm really interested in which is why asked about the 0.4 release. I also use Karaf+Camel and I'm used

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Younes Ouadi
Hello Alasdair, I endorse the point of view of both Bengt and Harald. It will be very interesting to release the enhancement allowing the runtime enhancer. This feature is more 'compatible' with the loose-coupling best-practice. Why should my 'entities bundles' know about their JPA Provider? I

RE: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Timothy Ward
, 28 Jun 2011 09:18:51 + Subject: Re: 0.4 From: younes.ou...@gmail.com To: user@aries.apache.org Hello Alasdair, I endorse the point of view of both Bengt and Harald. It will be very interesting to release the enhancement allowing the runtime enhancer. This feature is more 'compatible

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Jeremy Hughes
, but now that Equinox 3.7 and the OSGi 4.3 API are available it should be possible for us to get the build into a release-able state Regards, Tim Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:18:51 + Subject: Re: 0.4 From: younes.ou...@gmail.com To: user@aries.apache.org

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Jacek Laskowski
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Bengt Rodehav be...@rodehav.com wrote: Now that you seem to release the sub projects independently (which I guess is good since it enables more frequent releases) it is important to document what versions of the different sub projects are compatible with each

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Bengt Rodehav
Yeah, I guess you're right. I'm just a little sloppy when it comes to OSGi versioning myself... /Bengt 2011/6/28 Jacek Laskowski ja...@japila.pl On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Bengt Rodehav be...@rodehav.com wrote: Now that you seem to release the sub projects independently (which I

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Oliver Lietz
Am Monday 27 June 2011 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: Hi, hey, I don't think there are any plans. In the past releases have been more on demand. After the 0.3 release we decided to move to a pre-bundle release process so their wont be a big 0.4 release like there were previously. Some

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Oliver Lietz
Am Tuesday 28 June 2011 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: Alasdair Nottingham On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:06, Oliver Lietz apa...@oliverlietz.de wrote: Am Monday 27 June 2011 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: Hi, hey, I don't think there are any plans. In the past releases have been more on

Re: 0.4

2011-06-28 Thread Alasdair Nottingham
Alasdair Nottingham On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:46, Oliver Lietz apa...@oliverlietz.de wrote: Am Tuesday 28 June 2011 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: Alasdair Nottingham On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:06, Oliver Lietz apa...@oliverlietz.de wrote: Am Monday 27 June 2011 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: Hi,

Re: 0.4

2011-06-27 Thread Alasdair Nottingham
Hi, I don't think there are any plans. In the past releases have been more on demand. After the 0.3 release we decided to move to a pre-bundle release process so their wont be a big 0.4 release like there were previously. Some bundles might be at 0.4 and some at 0.3.1. Do you need a release?