+1 I make Simon's words my words too... On 4/24/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1. I would like to nominate Ant too. Thanks, Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:32 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it > How about Ant as release manager for this release? He has been very > diligent in reviewing previous Tuscany releases with many helpful > comments. He has a good understanding of the Apache requirements > and process for publishing a release, and I think he is very well > qualified to take this on. > > Simon > > Raymond Feng wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> After evaluating the features I would like to contribute to this release >> in the short timeframe, I don't think I would have enough time to handle >> the release as I'm new to this process. I would appreciate if somebody >> else with more experience volunteers to be the release manager. This way, >> I can learn more and get ready for the next time. >> >> Thanks, >> Raymond >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:25 AM >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it >> >> >>> +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core >>> functions, >>> other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a >>> Domain >>> concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration >>> with >>> App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC >>> integration. >>> >>> +1 on Raymond as Release Manager >>> >>> On 4/20/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Considering that we want to achieve this in about 3 weeks, I agree that >>>> we >>>> focus on the stability and consumability for the core functions. >>>> >>>> Other additional features are welcome. We can decide if they will be >>>> part >>>> of >>>> the release based on the readiness. >>>> >>>> Are any of you going to volunteer to be the release manager? If not, I >>>> can >>>> give a try. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Raymond >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:07 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it >>>> >>>> >>>> > Davanum Srinivas wrote: >>>> >> Folks, >>>> >> >>>> >> Let's keep the ball rolling...Can someone please come up with a >>>> master >>>> >> list of "extensions, bindings, services, samples" which can then >>>> >> help >>>> >> decide what's going to get into the next release. Please start a >>>> >> wiki >>>> >> page to document the master list. Once we are done documenting the >>>> >> list. We can figure out which ones are MUST, which ones are nice to >>>> >> have, which ones are out of scope. Then we can work backwards to >>>> >> figure out How tightly or loosely coupled each piece is/should be >>>> >> and >>>> >> how we could decouple them if necessary using >>>> >> interfaces/spi/whatever... >>>> >> >>>> >> Quote from Bert Lamb: >>>> >> "I think there should be a voted upon core set of extensions, >>>> >> bindings, services, samples, whatever that should be part of a >>>> >> monolithic build." >>>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg16062.html >>>> >> >>>> >> Quote from Ant Elder: >>>> >> The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is >>>> >> left >>>> out >>>> >> of >>>> >> this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All >>>> >> this >>>> >> vote >>>> >> is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this >>>> next >>>> >> release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xmlwill >>>> >> exist >>>> >> to enable building all those modules at once. >>>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg16155.html >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks, >>>> >> dims >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > I think we have made good progress since we initially started this >>>> > discussion. We have a simpler structure in trunk with a working > >>>> top-down >>>> > build. Samples and integration tests from the integration branch have >>>> been >>>> > integrated back in trunk and most are now working. >>>> > >>>> > We have a more modular runtime with a simpler extension mechanism. >>>> > For >>>> > example we have separate modules for the various models, the core >>>> runtime >>>> > and the Java component support. SPIs between the models and the >>>> rest of >>>> > the runtime have been refactored and should become more stable. We >>>> need >>>> to >>>> > do more work to further simplify the core runtime SPIs and improve >>>> > the >>>> > core runtime but I think this is going in the right direction. >>>> > >>>> > I'm also happy to see better support for the SCA 1.0 spec, with >>>> support >>>> > for most of the SCA 1.0 assembly XML, and some of the SCA 1.0 APIs. >>>> > It >>>> > looks like extensions are starting to work again in the trunk, > >>>> including >>>> > Web Services, Java and scripting components. It shouldn't be too >>>> difficult >>>> > to port some of the other extensions - Spring, JMS, JSON-RPC - to >>>> > the >>>> > latest code base as well. >>>> > >>>> > So, the JavaOne conference is in three weeks, would it make sense >>>> to > try >>>> > to have a Tuscany release by then? >>>> > >>>> > We could integrate in that release what we already have working in >>>> trunk, >>>> > mature and stabilize our SPIs and our extensibility story, and this >>>> would >>>> > be a good foundation for people to use, embed or extend. >>>> > >>>> > On top of that, I think it would be really cool to do some work to: >>>> > - Make it easier to assemble a distributed SCA domain with components >>>> > running on different runtimes / machines. >>>> > - Improve our scripting and JSON-RPC support a little and show how to >>>> > build Web 2.0 applications with Tuscany. >>>> > - Improve our integration story with Tomcat and also start looking >>>> at > an >>>> > integration with Geronimo. >>>> > - Improve our Spring-based core variant implementation, as I think >>>> it's >>>> a >>>> > good example to show how to integrate Tuscany with other IoC > >>>> containers. >>>> > - Maybe start looking at the equivalent using Google Guice. >>>> > - Start looking again at some of the extensions that we have in >>>> contrib >>>> or >>>> > sandboxes (OSGI, ServiceMix, I think there's a Fractal extension in >>>> > sandbox, more databindings etc). >>>> > - ... >>>> > >>>> > I'm not sure we can do all of that in the next few weeks :) but I'd >>>> > like >>>> > to get your thoughts and see what people in the community would >>>> like to >>>> > have in that next release... >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Jean-Sebastien >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
