Re: Next 2.x release

[ant elder <an...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:34 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:49 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've made some progress on getting the distributed domain and sca
>> client going again and would like to do another release to get those
>> out. If i started the release process next week would that fit in ok
>> with others plans?
>>
>>   ...ant
>>
>
> What shall we call this next release? Following on from the last
> release it would be 2.0-Beta3, another option could be 2.0. What else
> do we need to get done before we're ready for a 2.0 release? If its a
> short list of todo's should we just work on getting those done and
> going straight to 2.0 for the next release?
>

Any comments on the release name?

I'm back from being on holiday now and it looks like there are enough
others active to get a release vote out so I'd like to have another go
and getting a release out. Unless anyone asks otherwise I'll probably
do a bit of clean up and review this week and cut an RC next week.

   ...ant

Re: Next 2.x release

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:42 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what we've
>> > said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get down
>> > to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all the
>> > things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0 category and
>> > then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
>> > category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we should
>> > close them down and populate with any others that must be there.
>> >
>>
>> Ok that makes sense. To make this clearer I've moved all the existing
>> open v2 JIRAs to Java-SCA-2.x (there were still a few open ones from
>> previous v2 releases too), lets spend the next week adding what are
>> real issues and tasks that need to happen for 2.0 and put them in
>> Java-SCA-2.0. Then we can see how close we are to doing the 2.0
>> release.
>>
>
> Not many JIRA added to the Java-SCA-2.0 category yet. Is this because we're
> almost done and people are happy to leave things till post 2.0 or do we need
> more time to move and create the JIRAs?
>
>    ...ant
>
>
I think it's because we haven't got our fingers out and done it!

Simon


-- 
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

Re: Next 2.x release

[ant elder <an...@apache.org>]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what we've
> > said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get down
> > to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all the
> > things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0 category and
> > then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
> > category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we should
> > close them down and populate with any others that must be there.
> >
>
> Ok that makes sense. To make this clearer I've moved all the existing
> open v2 JIRAs to Java-SCA-2.x (there were still a few open ones from
> previous v2 releases too), lets spend the next week adding what are
> real issues and tasks that need to happen for 2.0 and put them in
> Java-SCA-2.0. Then we can see how close we are to doing the 2.0
> release.
>
>
Not many JIRA added to the Java-SCA-2.0 category yet. Is this because we're
almost done and people are happy to leave things till post 2.0 or do we need
more time to move and create the JIRAs?

   ...ant

RE: Next 2.x release (UNCLASSIFIED)

["Yang, Gang USA CTR (CH)" <ga...@mail.mil>]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Hi, Simon,

Thanks for looking into this. The significance of JIRA 3852 and 3853 is that it at least allow us get hold of the SOAP message for security processing.

>From the view point of having a general solution, fixing 3852 is preferred since it allows us to integrate with Tuscany instead of the specific WS binding providers (sort of), which can theoretically provide a more generic solution regardless what binding provider is used. I understand my this statement is not entirely true because it depends on how much abstractions Tuscany API provides. I think our earlier discussions touched upon this. But there's a hope. On the contrary, 3853 only provides a way to integrate with Axis2 binding provider specifically.

Thanks again.
Gang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Laws [mailto:simonslaws@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:10 AM
> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Next 2.x release (UNCLASSIFIED)
> 
> Hi Gang
> 
> I agree that we need to look at this. Haven't go to them yet but I'll
> go through them again and add them to the 2.0 list.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Yang, Gang USA CTR (CH)
> <ga...@mail.mil> wrote:
> > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > Caveats: NONE
> >
> > I created the following JIRAs 3852, 3853, 3854 and 3855 based on
> Simon's summary of several earlier discussions on Policy extension for
> implementing WS security and I verified problems with prototypes (patch
> attached to JIRSs). None of them was included in Java-SCA-2.x. I would
> urge that some of the crucial ones, such as 3852 and/or 3853, be
> considered to be included for the 2.0 release.
> >
> > Our project is currently using 1.6.2, which has PolicyHandler
> support, to implement WS-security. But when we move to 2.0, there would
> be no working mechanism for implementing WS-security.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gang
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Simon Laws [mailto:simonslaws@googlemail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:08 AM
> >> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Next 2.x release
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Laws
> >> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what
> we've
> >> >> said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get
> down
> >> >> to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all
> the
> >> >> things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0
> category
> >> and
> >> >> then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
> >> >> category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we
> >> should
> >> >> close them down and populate with any others that must be there.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Ok that makes sense. To make this clearer I've moved all the
> existing
> >> > open v2 JIRAs to Java-SCA-2.x (there were still a few open ones
> from
> >> > previous v2 releases too), lets spend the next week adding what
> are
> >> > real issues and tasks that need to happen for 2.0 and put them in
> >> > Java-SCA-2.0. Then we can see how close we are to doing the 2.0
> >> > release.
> >> >
> >> >   ...ant
> >> >
> >>
> >> Splendid, thanks Ant. Anyone else have comments/concerns?
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> >> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
> >
> > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > Caveats: NONE
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Re: Next 2.x release (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

Hi Gang

I agree that we need to look at this. Haven't go to them yet but I'll
go through them again and add them to the 2.0 list.

Regards

Simon

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Yang, Gang USA CTR (CH)
<ga...@mail.mil> wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> I created the following JIRAs 3852, 3853, 3854 and 3855 based on Simon's summary of several earlier discussions on Policy extension for implementing WS security and I verified problems with prototypes (patch attached to JIRSs). None of them was included in Java-SCA-2.x. I would urge that some of the crucial ones, such as 3852 and/or 3853, be considered to be included for the 2.0 release.
>
> Our project is currently using 1.6.2, which has PolicyHandler support, to implement WS-security. But when we move to 2.0, there would be no working mechanism for implementing WS-security.
>
> Thanks,
> Gang
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Laws [mailto:simonslaws@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:08 AM
>> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Next 2.x release
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Laws
>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what we've
>> >> said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get down
>> >> to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all the
>> >> things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0 category
>> and
>> >> then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
>> >> category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we
>> should
>> >> close them down and populate with any others that must be there.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok that makes sense. To make this clearer I've moved all the existing
>> > open v2 JIRAs to Java-SCA-2.x (there were still a few open ones from
>> > previous v2 releases too), lets spend the next week adding what are
>> > real issues and tasks that need to happen for 2.0 and put them in
>> > Java-SCA-2.0. Then we can see how close we are to doing the 2.0
>> > release.
>> >
>> >   ...ant
>> >
>>
>> Splendid, thanks Ant. Anyone else have comments/concerns?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> --
>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>



-- 
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

RE: Next 2.x release (UNCLASSIFIED)

["Yang, Gang USA CTR (CH)" <ga...@mail.mil>]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

I created the following JIRAs 3852, 3853, 3854 and 3855 based on Simon's summary of several earlier discussions on Policy extension for implementing WS security and I verified problems with prototypes (patch attached to JIRSs). None of them was included in Java-SCA-2.x. I would urge that some of the crucial ones, such as 3852 and/or 3853, be considered to be included for the 2.0 release. 

Our project is currently using 1.6.2, which has PolicyHandler support, to implement WS-security. But when we move to 2.0, there would be no working mechanism for implementing WS-security.

Thanks,
Gang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Laws [mailto:simonslaws@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:08 AM
> To: dev@tuscany.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Next 2.x release
> 
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Laws
> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what we've
> >> said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get down
> >> to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all the
> >> things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0 category
> and
> >> then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
> >> category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we
> should
> >> close them down and populate with any others that must be there.
> >>
> >
> > Ok that makes sense. To make this clearer I've moved all the existing
> > open v2 JIRAs to Java-SCA-2.x (there were still a few open ones from
> > previous v2 releases too), lets spend the next week adding what are
> > real issues and tasks that need to happen for 2.0 and put them in
> > Java-SCA-2.0. Then we can see how close we are to doing the 2.0
> > release.
> >
> >   ...ant
> >
> 
> Splendid, thanks Ant. Anyone else have comments/concerns?
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Re: Next 2.x release

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what we've
>> said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get down
>> to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all the
>> things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0 category and
>> then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
>> category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we should
>> close them down and populate with any others that must be there.
>>
>
> Ok that makes sense. To make this clearer I've moved all the existing
> open v2 JIRAs to Java-SCA-2.x (there were still a few open ones from
> previous v2 releases too), lets spend the next week adding what are
> real issues and tasks that need to happen for 2.0 and put them in
> Java-SCA-2.0. Then we can see how close we are to doing the 2.0
> release.
>
>   ...ant
>

Splendid, thanks Ant. Anyone else have comments/concerns?

Simon


-- 
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

Re: Next 2.x release

[ant elder <an...@apache.org>]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what we've
> said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get down
> to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all the
> things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0 category and
> then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
> category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we should
> close them down and populate with any others that must be there.
>

Ok that makes sense. To make this clearer I've moved all the existing
open v2 JIRAs to Java-SCA-2.x (there were still a few open ones from
previous v2 releases too), lets spend the next week adding what are
real issues and tasks that need to happen for 2.0 and put them in
Java-SCA-2.0. Then we can see how close we are to doing the 2.0
release.

   ...ant

Re: Next 2.x release

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:47 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> What shall we call this next release? Following on from the last
>>>> release it would be 2.0-Beta3, another option could be 2.0. What else
>>>> do we need to get done before we're ready for a 2.0 release? If its a
>>>> short list of todo's should we just work on getting those done and
>>>> going straight to 2.0 for the next release?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any comments on the release name?
>>>
>>> I'm back from being on holiday now and it looks like there are enough
>>> others active to get a release vote out so I'd like to have another go
>>> and getting a release out. Unless anyone asks otherwise I'll probably
>>> do a bit of clean up and review this week and cut an RC next week.
>>>
>>>   ...ant
>>>
>>
>> I've noticed some discussion on the OASIS list about the optional
>> requirements and associated tests. Maybe Mike would be better placed
>> to comment on any likely implications. I'd say go with 2.0-beta3 until
>> the dust is settled in case we have to change anything.
>>
>
> Ok i guess thats fine for this release just to get it done.
>
> I do think we should revisit the when to do the 2.0 release though. I
> know we've been waiting till OASIS does the 1.1 spec releases but with
> all the politics and time thats taking i think it might be better for
> Tuscany if we do 2.0 sooner and a later 2.x for OASIS.
>
>   ...ant
>

I'm not going to argue against that I was just repeating what we've
said previously. How about the make this the last beta then get down
to doing the 2.0 release. Our first action should be to list all the
things we think we need to get done in JIRA under the 2.0 category and
then work through them. Our 2.0 category has 18 items in it (2.x
category has 43 items in it) many of while can be closed. So we should
close them down and populate with any others that must be there.

Simon

-- 
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

Re: Next 2.x release

[ant elder <an...@apache.org>]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> What shall we call this next release? Following on from the last
>>> release it would be 2.0-Beta3, another option could be 2.0. What else
>>> do we need to get done before we're ready for a 2.0 release? If its a
>>> short list of todo's should we just work on getting those done and
>>> going straight to 2.0 for the next release?
>>>
>>
>> Any comments on the release name?
>>
>> I'm back from being on holiday now and it looks like there are enough
>> others active to get a release vote out so I'd like to have another go
>> and getting a release out. Unless anyone asks otherwise I'll probably
>> do a bit of clean up and review this week and cut an RC next week.
>>
>>   ...ant
>>
>
> I've noticed some discussion on the OASIS list about the optional
> requirements and associated tests. Maybe Mike would be better placed
> to comment on any likely implications. I'd say go with 2.0-beta3 until
> the dust is settled in case we have to change anything.
>

Ok i guess thats fine for this release just to get it done.

I do think we should revisit the when to do the 2.0 release though. I
know we've been waiting till OASIS does the 1.1 spec releases but with
all the politics and time thats taking i think it might be better for
Tuscany if we do 2.0 sooner and a later 2.x for OASIS.

   ...ant

Re: Next 2.x release

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

>> What shall we call this next release? Following on from the last
>> release it would be 2.0-Beta3, another option could be 2.0. What else
>> do we need to get done before we're ready for a 2.0 release? If its a
>> short list of todo's should we just work on getting those done and
>> going straight to 2.0 for the next release?
>>
>
> Any comments on the release name?
>
> I'm back from being on holiday now and it looks like there are enough
> others active to get a release vote out so I'd like to have another go
> and getting a release out. Unless anyone asks otherwise I'll probably
> do a bit of clean up and review this week and cut an RC next week.
>
>   ...ant
>

I've noticed some discussion on the OASIS list about the optional
requirements and associated tests. Maybe Mike would be better placed
to comment on any likely implications. I'd say go with 2.0-beta3 until
the dust is settled in case we have to change anything.

Simon

-- 
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com