Well, actually I'd like all known bugs to be fixed... As it is now, we're maintaining our own patched version of the the unreleased 3.0.1 version. It works for us, but surely other people will run into the same bugs we've found (and fixed in our patched version). Thus, one having to maintain his/her own patched version of smx is not in the community's interest. Also, I wouldn't like spending time investigating a problem just to find out that it is a known bug and it has been fixed, but there is no real bug fix for the relased version.
IMHO, the credibility of smx decreases if bug fixes aren't released for an officially released version. I don't think having to wait for the next minor/major version is ok, but bug fix releases should be made available. I guess I should say "in general", because I understand there could be special cases where it isn't possible or not worth the effort (but then it should be a very minor bug or some sort of work-araound should be available). To be clear, I'm talking bug fixes and not enhancements/new functionality. Enhancements and new functionality is the topic of a minor/major version, not a bug fix release. It is in no way my intent to disrespect the work and effort put into smx by the contributors. My comments above are only suggestions to improve smx. /Anders gnodet wrote: > > I guess they could Should even. > If you have specific needs, please send a mail with the > bug fixes you want to be included in the branch. > > On 1/4/07, Anders Hammar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Question regarding smx bug fixing philosophy: >> >> As this is a bug in 3.0.x, shouldn't the 3.0 branch be patched as well? >> For us using 3.0, this would be really helpful. >> >> >> gnodet wrote: >> > >> > I think you hit a bug that has been fixed in 3.1-SNAPSHOT. >> > See https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-582 >> > >> > On 1/3/07, Eyji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I have a problem using SM 3.0.1 that I hope you can help me with: >> >> >> >> A flow of events in SM are as follows: >> >> jms-consumer -> eip (pipeline) -> eip (routingslip) -> jms-povider >> >> >> >> The message from the jms consumer is in-only and the call to the >> >> ValidateComponent is in-out. >> >> The pipeline jms target sends a result to the jms-outqueue BC. >> >> >> >> The routinglip eip calls 2 services at this point: >> >> 1. validate incoming XML >> >> 2. transforms XML >> >> >> >> When validating a message, the sequential order of valid message and >> >> thereafter an invalid message works just fine, but as soon as I have >> run >> >> an >> >> invalid message through the system, all messages thereafter (valid or >> >> invalid) are sent to the error destination, and I have to restart SM >> to >> >> get >> >> it working properly again. If I start with an invalid message and then >> >> send >> >> a valid, the same error pattern arises. Hope you can give me some >> hints >> >> on >> >> why this problem arises.... >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> /Eje >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/Validation-headaches-tf2912932s12049.html#a8139120 >> >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers, >> > Guillaume Nodet >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Validation-headaches-tf2912932s12049.html#a8156609 >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Validation-headaches-tf2912932s12049.html#a8225419 Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
