On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
> > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th,
> > I'd
> > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> > > > structure
> > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > happening
> > > with
> > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of
> > this
> > > > year
> > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > >
> > > > > ...ant
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high
> > level
> > > > areas
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be
> > ready to
> > > > go
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> > indicate
> > > > what
> > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES
> > text
> > > so
> > > > it
> > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES
> > doc:-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning
> > on
> > > > > > spending
> > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution,
> > fixing
> > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a
> > > release
> > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review
> > at
> > > > their
> > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the
> > week
> > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we
> > can
> > > > vote
> > > > > > on.
> > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by
> > voting
> > > > with a
> > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get
> > > done).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces
> > of
> > > > function
> > > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende><
> > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > If people are agreed that any work that gets committed to trunk over
> > the
> > > Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content of the release
> > > candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm happy to keep that
> > > effort
> > > going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch including all of the
> > > fixes
> > > people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We could hope to use
> > this
> > > "RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce the pain a little
> > for
> > > this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen in just one place.
> > >
> > > If people have other projects in mind that take the trunk in a
> > different
> > > direction then I'll take a branch next week.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> > Doing it next year sounds good to me, i've no plans to start on new
> > stuff
> > not related to 1.1 over the break but i would find it useful to have
> > that
> > time to finish things off.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> I do want to get an RC done next week (from the trunk) which we can all
> test with and which I hope shows what we intend to release in 1.1. From
> past experience we know that the first time we try to get it all together
> there will be many things to fix and things to finish. I wouldn't expect
> that to include, for example, inclusion of new modules that we haven't
> discussed here or material changes to the structure of the release. The
> point of this being that we shouldn't be in 1.1. development mode when
> January comes round and that we are focused on getting 1.1 through the
> release votes with all the fixing and fiddling we know that entails.
>
> Simon
>
I'm planning to spend the next 3 days working on getting the mechanics of
the release in place for 1.1 and working on bug fixes. From the initial list
that I postulated at the start of this and peoples subsequent replies I
believe we can expect these pieces of work.
- Better JMS support
- What level of support are we now expecting?
- JAXB based POJO transformations.
- More policy function including JAAS and better designed policy
handlers
- Modeling of client side java script components
- JSONRPC reference binding
- Can someone comment is this is actually done?
- Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec including a
standalone node and nodes running connected together in a domain.
- Class loading and OSGI improvements
- Support for BPEL references
Please check the accuracy of this and let me know what is missing. In
particular I want more detail on what we can expect for
JMS - for example
Point to point, XML messages, Callbacks?
JSONRPC references
Is this done now?
Class loading and OSGI improvements
What new features/behaviour will people see in the release?
Regards
Simon
