Was there any further discussion about this (I'm catching up on mail
after
being away so likely missed things)? Its an interesting question i
think. So
far we seem to be operating in that everyone can just add what extensions
they choose to trunk we don't need to get any consensus first. I quite
like
this approach but there are other ways. One alternative could be to have
some 'core' set of extensions and another 'additional' set. The core
set we
deem by consensus are the official/production/stable/??? ones, and we
need
to vote to get an extension included in that core set, but anyone can add
what they like to the 'additional' set. Do others have any opinions on
this
or suggestions on alternative approaches?
...ant
On 7/3/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to restart the earlier discussion in
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19224.html
> about whether implementation.das and implementation.data should be
> packaged with SCA releases or DAS releases.
>
> I think it's better for these to be packaged with DAS releases as
> the code will be more aligned with evolving DAS capabilities than
> with evolving SCA capabilities. This will allow new features to be
> added as and when it makes sense for DAS to move up to support them.
>
> Simon
>
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>
> > Now that we are going to have a DAS release out, I'd like to plan to
> > have implementation.das and implementation.data available for the
next
> > release.
> >
> > I also like to have some improvements to the Contribution Services,
> > such as import/export and other scenarios that have been described on
> > the list recently. I'll update the wiki with these items.
> >
> > On 7/2/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Posting to tuscany-user list as well to get input.
> >>
> >> Any real world scenarios/samples that can be shared by users? It
would
> be
> >> great if we could start building a library of tips and real usage
> >> examples.. a knowledge base.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Haleh
> >>
> >> On 7/2/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 7/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On 7/2/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 7/2/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I am looking at the Policy Framework and shall update the
wiki
> on
> >> > the
> >> > > > > specifics soon. Once this is done to some level, I'd also
> >> like to
> >> > > help
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > bit with the ws-* things (may be WS-Security to start with)
> >> that Ant
> >> > > has
> >> > > > > listed on the wiki page.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > - Venkat
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 6/30/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > With the SCA 0.91 release now being voted on how about
> >> starting on
> >> > > > 0.92?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I've already been adding some things I'm interested in
> getting
> >> > done
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > next release wiki page -
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents-
> >>
> >> > > > > > so far thats mainly related to improving web services
> >> > functionality.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > So anyone else interested in helping with an 0.92
release or
> >> have
> >> > > any
> >> > > > > > function they'd like to suggest or add to the wiki
page? How
> >> does
> >> > > > aiming
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > getting it done 4 - 6 weeks again sound?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ...ant
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The above link has an extrenuous "-" on the end. Taking
that off
> >> gets
> >> > me
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > the page. Can we move this information across the to the
new wiki
> >> > space
> >> > > (
> >> > > >
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Home) so
> >> that
> >> > > > everyone (including non committers) can add to it?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm working on the next phase of the distributed runtime
which I
> >> want
> >> > to
> >> > > > get
> >> > > > into the next release. This involves a few items.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > SCA Binding
> >> > > > Topology model
> >> > > > Distributed domain
> >> > > > Node implementation
> >> > > > Management assembly
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also I need some of the ws items, in particular the ability to
> run
> >> > > without
> >> > > > wsdl, so can help out there.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We need to do something about logging and events to improvide
> >> runtime
> >> > > > usability. We've talked about it before but not done anything
> yet.
> >> > Ties
> >> > > > into
> >> > > > the management assembly.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'd also like to see the JMS binding in the release but can't
> >> commit
> >> > to
> >> > > > doing lots more work on including spec features. It's been
> working
> >> > fine
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > me in my limited synchronous/rpc model. If I get time I'll
take
> >> a look
> >> > > to
> >> > > > see what it will take to add minimum asynch support but if
> >> anyone else
> >> > > > fancies having a go at this then it's a good way to learn
about
> >> > Tuscany
> >> > > > extensions.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > All these sound good, but its starting to sound a lot to get
done
> in
> >> > just
> >> > > a
> >> > > few weeks. How does the suggesting timeframe of 4 or so weeks
> sound?
> >> > >
> >> > > We'd talked once about having a release specifically targeting
> things
> >> > like
> >> > > logging, events, and error handling. I'd still like to do
that, if
> >> > anyone
> >> > > wants to start now thats great but I doubt I'd have much time to
> help
> >> > this
> >> > > release.
> >> > >
> >> > > ...ant
> >> > >
> >> > I think 4 weeks is a bit too short. Given that we are getting into
> >> holday
> >> > season I like the sound of 6 weeks better.
> >> >
> >> > I agree there is a lot there but in the spirit of your WS list I
> wasn't
> >> > proposing that all of it gets done. I do think we need to make a
> >> start on
> >> > the logging/errors sooner rather than later though even if it
> >> doesn't get
> >> > into the next release. I'll offer my effort to help move it along
> >> once the
> >> > distributed work starts drawing to a close.
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> >
> >>
