I agree that beta1 sounds good and will encourage people to try
Tuscany because it seems like a stable release (more so than our
previous releases and attempted releases). And in terms of SCA
spec APIs, I think we are pretty much at beta level currently.
I would also regard the SDO implementation and APIs as being at
beta level.
However... I have some concerns about whether we can truly describe
our current SCA implementation as being at beta level. If we are
going to put "beta" on the outside of the box, then we had better make
sure that "beta" code is inside the box as well. In the last few
weeks we have been through very significant changes in the codebase.
The progress has been remarkable, and the changes have been very
positive, but there are still a few loose bits hanging out. One
example of this is the lifecycle issues that I raised a few days ago.
Another is the problems that people are currently having with
Tomcat and Web Services. So I don't think what we have today is
quite at the level of stability, completeness and quality that truly
justifies a "beta" designation, and realistically I am not sure that
we will be able to get the code to that point in the next week and
be able to put out a "beta quality" release by JavaOne.
So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
"beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
Simon
Raymond Feng wrote:
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Next release name? (was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What
should be in it)
+1
As for DAS, as it has dependencies on SDO, I'd propose to follow the same
name convention as SDO, and use beta1 as well.
On 4/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ant elder wrote:
> What are we going to be calling this next SCA release?
>
> We've had M1 and M2 releases, some alpha kernel releases, DAS are
talking
> about an M3 release and SDO is doing an M3 release although there was
> some
> discussion about renaming that to beta1. I think milestone and alpha
> release
> names may discourage people from trying a release as it makes it sound
> unstable. The spec defined SCA APIs are stable now and we're talking
> about
> making stable SPIs for this next release, so the Tuscany externals are
> becoming stable and that sounds better than alpha quality to me.
>
> So how about the next Tuscany SCA release is named beta1? and we could
> try
> to get DAS and SDO to also follow that naming?
>
> Any comments or alternative name suggestions?
>
> ...ant
>
Good idea, beta1 makes sense to me as APIs and SPIs are getting stable,
as is our support for the SCA assembly XML described in the SCA 1.0
spec.
+1 from me.
--
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]
