You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> on 2009/05/12 10:38:37 UTC
[2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Hi
2.x is becoming active again so what are people hoping to get done for
M3? I'm interested in continuing to enhance the level of OASIS support
we have so to that end I took a look at the OSOA vs OASIS page [1] to
try and identify the big items that need fixing. The following jump
out...
Assembly - based on spec JIRA [2]
ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57
All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up
our endpoint support)
ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution
Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring
ASSEMBLY-79 wireFormat/operationSelector
Need to bring in binding wire support from 1.x
Could bring in binding.jms or
OASIS also have the spec compliance tests done now so we can
exploit those to see how many we could get running. I know Kelvin has
been trying them out but I don't know how many need to be fixed.
Other things that have been bouncing around the list recently and
which would be good to get on with....
Binding.ws
A reorg here has just been mentioned on another thread and would
motivate us to bring in the binding wire and also get policy working.
Java - spec only just going out now so no tests yet
SCA client
API changes and simplification
Policy
Model is in place
Runtime code needs doing
Other
Error handling
I notice from some of his recent posts that Mike is getting
frustrated by the lack of context we provide in out error messages,
i.e. which composite/component/binding etc. is being processed.
Now would be a good time to improve that
We could also take the opportunity to refresh the validation
tests and locate then with the module being tested rather than being
in one large itest.
Backward compatibility
I've just started to look at this again to see what we could do.
Anything here that sparks your interest? Alternatively what other
things would be good to get into M3?
Simon
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/OSOA+SCA+vs+OASIS+SCA
[2] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
I haven't really looked at stest much. I have been running the otests
in eclipse, but they require a good deal of hand customisation of the
eclipse environment at the moment to get them going. I will post what
needs to be done to make them work in eclipse.
---
Kelvin.
2009/6/9 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>
>> The vtest folder moved in r783013. What about the stest folder? Has it
>> now been replaced by otest so stest could also go to contrib?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Yes, I think stest can go although Kelvin's the expert on these tests.
>
> Simon
>
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:50 AM, ant elder<an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> How about also moving these ones to contrib for now:
>
> binding-dwr/
> binding-dwr-runtime/
> binding-jsonrpc/
> binding-rest/
> binding-rest-runtime/
> binding-ws-jaxws/
>
> The idea being that regularly moving unfinished and inactive things to
> contrib will help keep the main trunk clean, and if there are no
> barriers to moving back to trunk no one should mind?
>
> (that still leaves binding-jsonp and wicket unfinished in trunk but i
> am still slowly working on those)
>
> ...ant
>
I've don that now.
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:25 AM, ant elder<an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:21 AM, ant elder<an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The vtest folder moved in r783013. What about the stest folder? Has it
>>>> now been replaced by otest so stest could also go to contrib?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I think stest can go although Kelvin's the expert on these tests.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> I've moved stest to contrib in r783241.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> What about the*-osoa modules (assembly-xml-osoa, assembly-xsd-osoa,
> binding-sca-xml-osoa, sca-api-osoa, implementation-java-xml-osoa)? If
> we're not going to embed support for both spec versions in the 2.x
> runtime now how about moving these to contrib too?
>
> ...ant
>
How about also moving these ones to contrib for now:
binding-dwr/
binding-dwr-runtime/
binding-jsonrpc/
binding-rest/
binding-rest-runtime/
binding-ws-jaxws/
The idea being that regularly moving unfinished and inactive things to
contrib will help keep the main trunk clean, and if there are no
barriers to moving back to trunk no one should mind?
(that still leaves binding-jsonp and wicket unfinished in trunk but i
am still slowly working on those)
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:25 AM, ant elder<an...@apache.org> wrote:
> What about the*-osoa modules (assembly-xml-osoa, assembly-xsd-osoa,
> binding-sca-xml-osoa, sca-api-osoa, implementation-java-xml-osoa)? If
> we're not going to embed support for both spec versions in the 2.x
> runtime now how about moving these to contrib too?
>
And thats done now too.
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:21 AM, ant elder<an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The vtest folder moved in r783013. What about the stest folder? Has it
>>> now been replaced by otest so stest could also go to contrib?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think stest can go although Kelvin's the expert on these tests.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> I've moved stest to contrib in r783241.
>
> ...ant
>
What about the*-osoa modules (assembly-xml-osoa, assembly-xsd-osoa,
binding-sca-xml-osoa, sca-api-osoa, implementation-java-xml-osoa)? If
we're not going to embed support for both spec versions in the 2.x
runtime now how about moving these to contrib too?
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The vtest folder moved in r783013. What about the stest folder? Has it
>> now been replaced by otest so stest could also go to contrib?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Yes, I think stest can go although Kelvin's the expert on these tests.
>
> Simon
>
I've moved stest to contrib in r783241.
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> The vtest folder moved in r783013. What about the stest folder? Has it
> now been replaced by otest so stest could also go to contrib?
>
> ...ant
>
Yes, I think stest can go although Kelvin's the expert on these tests.
Simon
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:38 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:30 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for
>>>>> M3.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
>>>> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
>>>> following week.
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> Starting preparation for this i've run RAT against the current 2.x
>>> trunk distributions, the results are at:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/2.0-M3/.
>>>
>>> One thing from that is there are some problems in the otest and vtest
>>> folders neither of which are included in the build so I wonder do we
>>> need those test folders in the 2.x trunk now or could they be moved to
>>> contrib for now?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Forgot that otest are the oasis tests and actively being worked on so
>> they should stay in trunk, what about vtests?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
> vtest will be inaccurate at best for OASIS so I think we should remove
> them and then decide if we need them over and above otest.
>
> Simon
>
The vtest folder moved in r783013. What about the stest folder? Has it
now been replaced by otest so stest could also go to contrib?
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:38 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:30 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for
>>>> M3.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
>>> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
>>> following week.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Starting preparation for this i've run RAT against the current 2.x
>> trunk distributions, the results are at:
>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/2.0-M3/.
>>
>> One thing from that is there are some problems in the otest and vtest
>> folders neither of which are included in the build so I wonder do we
>> need those test folders in the 2.x trunk now or could they be moved to
>> contrib for now?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Forgot that otest are the oasis tests and actively being worked on so
> they should stay in trunk, what about vtests?
>
> ...ant
>
vtest will be inaccurate at best for OASIS so I think we should remove
them and then decide if we need them over and above otest.
Simon
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:30 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for
>>> M3.
>>>
>>
>> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
>> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
>> following week.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Starting preparation for this i've run RAT against the current 2.x
> trunk distributions, the results are at:
> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/2.0-M3/.
>
> One thing from that is there are some problems in the otest and vtest
> folders neither of which are included in the build so I wonder do we
> need those test folders in the 2.x trunk now or could they be moved to
> contrib for now?
>
> ...ant
>
Forgot that otest are the oasis tests and actively being worked on so
they should stay in trunk, what about vtests?
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for
>> M3.
>>
>
> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
> following week.
>
> ...ant
>
Starting preparation for this i've run RAT against the current 2.x
trunk distributions, the results are at:
http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/2.0-M3/.
One thing from that is there are some problems in the otest and vtest
folders neither of which are included in the build so I wonder do we
need those test folders in the 2.x trunk now or could they be moved to
contrib for now?
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:02 PM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I think I've done enough with Endpoints for M3 now. I don't have a
>> clean build yet due to this NPE in schema reading but other than that
>> I'm done.
>>
>> Not got remote binding.sca up and running yet so that will have to
>> wait until next time.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> Ok i plan to take the M3 release branch shortly then.
>
> ...ant
>
The M3 branch is looking pretty good to me, I'll create an RC1 on
Thursday morning, feel welcome to do any reviews and release checking
in the mean time. If you're checking in anything to the branch please
try to be careful of dependency/license/build breaks etc.
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I think I've done enough with Endpoints for M3 now. I don't have a
> clean build yet due to this NPE in schema reading but other than that
> I'm done.
>
> Not got remote binding.sca up and running yet so that will have to
> wait until next time.
>
> Simon
>
Ok i plan to take the M3 release branch shortly then.
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I think I've done enough with Endpoints for M3 now. I don't have a
clean build yet due to this NPE in schema reading but other than that
I'm done.
Not got remote binding.sca up and running yet so that will have to
wait until next time.
Simon
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ant,
I have checked-in code for the "ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution" using
TUSCANY-3079.
Please include them for M3.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:34 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I guess there's no need to hurry though, so would it be worth waiting
> >> on M3 slightly to get callbacks going?
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> > I've been struggling a bit today on some missunderstanding between
> > some of the changes that have been going on related to
> > reference/service promotion. I'd still like to see if I can get this
> > callback scenario squared away so I would like to delay until Monday
> > if that's possible.
> >
> > If people want to go ahead then I won't check anything in.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Ok lets wait till Monday and see how things are then.
>
> ...ant
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I guess there's no need to hurry though, so would it be worth waiting
>> on M3 slightly to get callbacks going?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
> I've been struggling a bit today on some missunderstanding between
> some of the changes that have been going on related to
> reference/service promotion. I'd still like to see if I can get this
> callback scenario squared away so I would like to delay until Monday
> if that's possible.
>
> If people want to go ahead then I won't check anything in.
>
> Simon
>
Ok lets wait till Monday and see how things are then.
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> I guess there's no need to hurry though, so would it be worth waiting
> on M3 slightly to get callbacks going?
>
> ...ant
>
I've been struggling a bit today on some missunderstanding between
some of the changes that have been going on related to
reference/service promotion. I'd still like to see if I can get this
callback scenario squared away so I would like to delay until Monday
if that's possible.
If people want to go ahead then I won't check anything in.
Simon
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
>>> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
>>> following week.
>>>
>>
>> How is everyone going with M3 work, is it ready to take the branch
>> now? Or tomorrow? Or need a few more days?
>>
>> (Once the branch is taken we'll still be able to merge new changes
>> from trunk to the branch for a couple more days till its close to
>> making RC1)
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> It depends how much we want to have working. Hoping to bring up dome
> more tests today to reinstate callbacks over web services. Also
> working through removing the now redundant code. Haven't done endpoint
> reference serialization yet so passing callable reference over the
> wire won't work (we haven't put those tests in 2.x yet) and on this
> point I think we should move up to the OASIS APSI which changes the
> nature of ServiceReference and removed CallableReference.
>
> Remind me what part of the endpoint story you need working for the
> webapp work you're doing?
>
> Simon
>
Whats there now is enough to get the simple scenario working of a
webapp with an implementation.web component talking to an
implementation.java component in a separate contribution (so two
nodes, one for the webapp and another for the other contribution).
I guess there's no need to hurry though, so would it be worth waiting
on M3 slightly to get callbacks going?
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
>> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
>> following week.
>>
>
> How is everyone going with M3 work, is it ready to take the branch
> now? Or tomorrow? Or need a few more days?
>
> (Once the branch is taken we'll still be able to merge new changes
> from trunk to the branch for a couple more days till its close to
> making RC1)
>
> ...ant
>
It depends how much we want to have working. Hoping to bring up dome
more tests today to reinstate callbacks over web services. Also
working through removing the now redundant code. Haven't done endpoint
reference serialization yet so passing callable reference over the
wire won't work (we haven't put those tests in 2.x yet) and on this
point I think we should move up to the OASIS APSI which changes the
nature of ServiceReference and removed CallableReference.
Remind me what part of the endpoint story you need working for the
webapp work you're doing?
Simon
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
> following week.
>
How is everyone going with M3 work, is it ready to take the branch
now? Or tomorrow? Or need a few more days?
(Once the branch is taken we'll still be able to merge new changes
from trunk to the branch for a couple more days till its close to
making RC1)
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for
>> M3.
>>
>
> Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
> 12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
> following week.
>
> ...ant
>
Sounds like a good target to me.
Simon
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for
> M3.
>
Smashing. How about aiming for taking an M3 release branch about the
12th, so Friday after next, which should let us get an M3 out the
following week.
...ant
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I would like to take up ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution and get it done for
M3.
Is anyone already started working on this item, please let me know.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:25 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> 2.x is becoming active again so what are people hoping to get done for
> >> M3? I'm interested in continuing to enhance the level of OASIS support
> >> we have so to that end I took a look at the OSOA vs OASIS page [1] to
> >> try and identify the big items that need fixing. The following jump
> >> out...
> >>
> >> Assembly - based on spec JIRA [2]
> >> ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57
> >> All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up
> >> our endpoint support)
> >>
> >> ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution
> >> Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring
> >>
> >> ASSEMBLY-79 wireFormat/operationSelector
> >> Need to bring in binding wire support from 1.x
> >> Could bring in binding.jms or
> >>
> >> OASIS also have the spec compliance tests done now so we can
> >> exploit those to see how many we could get running. I know Kelvin has
> >> been trying them out but I don't know how many need to be fixed.
> >>
> >> Other things that have been bouncing around the list recently and
> >> which would be good to get on with....
> >>
> >> Binding.ws
> >> A reorg here has just been mentioned on another thread and would
> >> motivate us to bring in the binding wire and also get policy working.
> >>
> >> Java - spec only just going out now so no tests yet
> >> SCA client
> >> API changes and simplification
> >>
> >> Policy
> >> Model is in place
> >> Runtime code needs doing
> >>
> >> Other
> >> Error handling
> >> I notice from some of his recent posts that Mike is getting
> >> frustrated by the lack of context we provide in out error messages,
> >> i.e. which composite/component/binding etc. is being processed.
> >> Now would be a good time to improve that
> >> We could also take the opportunity to refresh the validation
> >> tests and locate then with the module being tested rather than being
> >> in one large itest.
> >>
> >> Backward compatibility
> >> I've just started to look at this again to see what we could do.
> >>
> >> Anything here that sparks your interest? Alternatively what other
> >> things would be good to get into M3?
> >>
> >
> > There's a lot in that list so i'm wondering how much of it we need to
> > get done for M3 or how long we want to take before doing M3. Its now 6
> > weeks since M2 and we did say we'd try to do 2.x releases every six
> > weeks, so how about aiming for a release in a couple of weeks and just
> > seeing what gets done?
> >
> > There's already a reasonable amount of new stuff done as mentioned in
> > the CHANGES file, one thing I'd really like to try to make some
> > progress on the Node endpoint service registry stuff we've talked
> > about in other threads and be able to show that working in the tomcat
> > deep integration. There's also still some finishing up needed for
> > module refactoring still to be done, and to tidy up the webapp samples
> > and archetypes that didn't make it into M2. And all those things would
> > likley fill up a couple of weeks.
> >
> > ..ant
> >
>
> +1 we're not going to get it all in M3. In light of some of the recent
> domain conversations I agree it would be good to have a go at
> finishing the Endpoint changes and the related items below if we can
>
> ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57
> All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up
> our endpoint support)
>
> ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution
> Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring
>
> Would be a good few to tick off
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:25 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> 2.x is becoming active again so what are people hoping to get done for
>> M3? I'm interested in continuing to enhance the level of OASIS support
>> we have so to that end I took a look at the OSOA vs OASIS page [1] to
>> try and identify the big items that need fixing. The following jump
>> out...
>>
>> Assembly - based on spec JIRA [2]
>> ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57
>> All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up
>> our endpoint support)
>>
>> ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution
>> Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring
>>
>> ASSEMBLY-79 wireFormat/operationSelector
>> Need to bring in binding wire support from 1.x
>> Could bring in binding.jms or
>>
>> OASIS also have the spec compliance tests done now so we can
>> exploit those to see how many we could get running. I know Kelvin has
>> been trying them out but I don't know how many need to be fixed.
>>
>> Other things that have been bouncing around the list recently and
>> which would be good to get on with....
>>
>> Binding.ws
>> A reorg here has just been mentioned on another thread and would
>> motivate us to bring in the binding wire and also get policy working.
>>
>> Java - spec only just going out now so no tests yet
>> SCA client
>> API changes and simplification
>>
>> Policy
>> Model is in place
>> Runtime code needs doing
>>
>> Other
>> Error handling
>> I notice from some of his recent posts that Mike is getting
>> frustrated by the lack of context we provide in out error messages,
>> i.e. which composite/component/binding etc. is being processed.
>> Now would be a good time to improve that
>> We could also take the opportunity to refresh the validation
>> tests and locate then with the module being tested rather than being
>> in one large itest.
>>
>> Backward compatibility
>> I've just started to look at this again to see what we could do.
>>
>> Anything here that sparks your interest? Alternatively what other
>> things would be good to get into M3?
>>
>
> There's a lot in that list so i'm wondering how much of it we need to
> get done for M3 or how long we want to take before doing M3. Its now 6
> weeks since M2 and we did say we'd try to do 2.x releases every six
> weeks, so how about aiming for a release in a couple of weeks and just
> seeing what gets done?
>
> There's already a reasonable amount of new stuff done as mentioned in
> the CHANGES file, one thing I'd really like to try to make some
> progress on the Node endpoint service registry stuff we've talked
> about in other threads and be able to show that working in the tomcat
> deep integration. There's also still some finishing up needed for
> module refactoring still to be done, and to tidy up the webapp samples
> and archetypes that didn't make it into M2. And all those things would
> likley fill up a couple of weeks.
>
> ..ant
>
+1 we're not going to get it all in M3. In light of some of the recent
domain conversations I agree it would be good to have a go at
finishing the Endpoint changes and the related items below if we can
ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57
All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up
our endpoint support)
ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution
Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring
Would be a good few to tick off
Simon
Re: [2.x] What will be in 2.x M3?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2.x is becoming active again so what are people hoping to get done for
> M3? I'm interested in continuing to enhance the level of OASIS support
> we have so to that end I took a look at the OSOA vs OASIS page [1] to
> try and identify the big items that need fixing. The following jump
> out...
>
> Assembly - based on spec JIRA [2]
> ASSEMBLY-1 / ASSEMBLY-17 / ASSEMBLY-57
> All about sorting out reference resolution (implies finishing up
> our endpoint support)
>
> ASSEMBLY-8 Artifact resolution
> Pushes us to finish tidying our contribution workspace re-factoring
>
> ASSEMBLY-79 wireFormat/operationSelector
> Need to bring in binding wire support from 1.x
> Could bring in binding.jms or
>
> OASIS also have the spec compliance tests done now so we can
> exploit those to see how many we could get running. I know Kelvin has
> been trying them out but I don't know how many need to be fixed.
>
> Other things that have been bouncing around the list recently and
> which would be good to get on with....
>
> Binding.ws
> A reorg here has just been mentioned on another thread and would
> motivate us to bring in the binding wire and also get policy working.
>
> Java - spec only just going out now so no tests yet
> SCA client
> API changes and simplification
>
> Policy
> Model is in place
> Runtime code needs doing
>
> Other
> Error handling
> I notice from some of his recent posts that Mike is getting
> frustrated by the lack of context we provide in out error messages,
> i.e. which composite/component/binding etc. is being processed.
> Now would be a good time to improve that
> We could also take the opportunity to refresh the validation
> tests and locate then with the module being tested rather than being
> in one large itest.
>
> Backward compatibility
> I've just started to look at this again to see what we could do.
>
> Anything here that sparks your interest? Alternatively what other
> things would be good to get into M3?
>
There's a lot in that list so i'm wondering how much of it we need to
get done for M3 or how long we want to take before doing M3. Its now 6
weeks since M2 and we did say we'd try to do 2.x releases every six
weeks, so how about aiming for a release in a couple of weeks and just
seeing what gets done?
There's already a reasonable amount of new stuff done as mentioned in
the CHANGES file, one thing I'd really like to try to make some
progress on the Node endpoint service registry stuff we've talked
about in other threads and be able to show that working in the tomcat
deep integration. There's also still some finishing up needed for
module refactoring still to be done, and to tidy up the webapp samples
and archetypes that didn't make it into M2. And all those things would
likley fill up a couple of weeks.
..ant