You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/24 17:55:07 UTC
Nominate Ant as the release manager was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
+1. I would like to nominate Ant too.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Nash" <na...@hursley.ibm.com>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
> How about Ant as release manager for this release? He has been very
> diligent in reviewing previous Tuscany releases with many helpful
> comments. He has a good understanding of the Apache requirements
> and process for publishing a release, and I think he is very well
> qualified to take this on.
>
> Simon
>
> Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After evaluating the features I would like to contribute to this release
>> in the short timeframe, I don't think I would have enough time to handle
>> the release as I'm new to this process. I would appreciate if somebody
>> else with more experience volunteers to be the release manager. This way,
>> I can learn more and get ready for the next time.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende"
>> <lu...@gmail.com>
>> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>>
>>
>>> +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core
>>> functions,
>>> other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a
>>> Domain
>>> concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration
>>> with
>>> App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC
>>> integration.
>>>
>>> +1 on Raymond as Release Manager
>>>
>>> On 4/20/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Considering that we want to achieve this in about 3 weeks, I agree that
>>>> we
>>>> focus on the stability and consumability for the core functions.
>>>>
>>>> Other additional features are welcome. We can decide if they will be
>>>> part
>>>> of
>>>> the release based on the readiness.
>>>>
>>>> Are any of you going to volunteer to be the release manager? If not, I
>>>> can
>>>> give a try.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Raymond
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <js...@apache.org>
>>>> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>> >> Folks,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Let's keep the ball rolling...Can someone please come up with a
>>>> master
>>>> >> list of "extensions, bindings, services, samples" which can then
>>>> >> help
>>>> >> decide what's going to get into the next release. Please start a
>>>> >> wiki
>>>> >> page to document the master list. Once we are done documenting the
>>>> >> list. We can figure out which ones are MUST, which ones are nice to
>>>> >> have, which ones are out of scope. Then we can work backwards to
>>>> >> figure out How tightly or loosely coupled each piece is/should be
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> how we could decouple them if necessary using
>>>> >> interfaces/spi/whatever...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Quote from Bert Lamb:
>>>> >> "I think there should be a voted upon core set of extensions,
>>>> >> bindings, services, samples, whatever that should be part of a
>>>> >> monolithic build."
>>>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Quote from Ant Elder:
>>>> >> The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is
>>>> >> left
>>>> out
>>>> >> of
>>>> >> this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All
>>>> >> this
>>>> >> vote
>>>> >> is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this
>>>> next
>>>> >> release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xml will
>>>> >> exist
>>>> >> to enable building all those modules at once.
>>>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16155.html
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> dims
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > I think we have made good progress since we initially started this
>>>> > discussion. We have a simpler structure in trunk with a working >
>>>> top-down
>>>> > build. Samples and integration tests from the integration branch have
>>>> been
>>>> > integrated back in trunk and most are now working.
>>>> >
>>>> > We have a more modular runtime with a simpler extension mechanism.
>>>> > For
>>>> > example we have separate modules for the various models, the core
>>>> runtime
>>>> > and the Java component support. SPIs between the models and the
>>>> rest of
>>>> > the runtime have been refactored and should become more stable. We
>>>> need
>>>> to
>>>> > do more work to further simplify the core runtime SPIs and improve
>>>> > the
>>>> > core runtime but I think this is going in the right direction.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm also happy to see better support for the SCA 1.0 spec, with
>>>> support
>>>> > for most of the SCA 1.0 assembly XML, and some of the SCA 1.0 APIs.
>>>> > It
>>>> > looks like extensions are starting to work again in the trunk, >
>>>> including
>>>> > Web Services, Java and scripting components. It shouldn't be too
>>>> difficult
>>>> > to port some of the other extensions - Spring, JMS, JSON-RPC - to
>>>> > the
>>>> > latest code base as well.
>>>> >
>>>> > So, the JavaOne conference is in three weeks, would it make sense
>>>> to > try
>>>> > to have a Tuscany release by then?
>>>> >
>>>> > We could integrate in that release what we already have working in
>>>> trunk,
>>>> > mature and stabilize our SPIs and our extensibility story, and this
>>>> would
>>>> > be a good foundation for people to use, embed or extend.
>>>> >
>>>> > On top of that, I think it would be really cool to do some work to:
>>>> > - Make it easier to assemble a distributed SCA domain with components
>>>> > running on different runtimes / machines.
>>>> > - Improve our scripting and JSON-RPC support a little and show how to
>>>> > build Web 2.0 applications with Tuscany.
>>>> > - Improve our integration story with Tomcat and also start looking
>>>> at > an
>>>> > integration with Geronimo.
>>>> > - Improve our Spring-based core variant implementation, as I think
>>>> it's
>>>> a
>>>> > good example to show how to integrate Tuscany with other IoC >
>>>> containers.
>>>> > - Maybe start looking at the equivalent using Google Guice.
>>>> > - Start looking again at some of the extensions that we have in
>>>> contrib
>>>> or
>>>> > sandboxes (OSGI, ServiceMix, I think there's a Fractal extension in
>>>> > sandbox, more databindings etc).
>>>> > - ...
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure we can do all of that in the next few weeks :) but I'd
>>>> > like
>>>> > to get your thoughts and see what people in the community would
>>>> like to
>>>> > have in that next release...
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Jean-Sebastien
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Nominate Ant as the release manager was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version
- What should be in it
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Luciano Resende wrote:
> +1 I make Simon's words my words too...
>
> On 4/24/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1. I would like to nominate Ant too.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Simon Nash" <na...@hursley.ibm.com>
>> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>>
>>
>> > How about Ant as release manager for this release? He has been very
>> > diligent in reviewing previous Tuscany releases with many helpful
>> > comments. He has a good understanding of the Apache requirements
>> > and process for publishing a release, and I think he is very well
>> > qualified to take this on.
>> >
>> > Simon
>> >
>> > Raymond Feng wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> After evaluating the features I would like to contribute to this
>> release
>> >> in the short timeframe, I don't think I would have enough time to
>> handle
>> >> the release as I'm new to this process. I would appreciate if
>> somebody
>> >> else with more experience volunteers to be the release manager. This
>> way,
>> >> I can learn more and get ready for the next time.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Raymond
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende"
>> >> <lu...@gmail.com>
>> >> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
>> >> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:25 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core
>> >>> functions,
>> >>> other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a
>> >>> Domain
>> >>> concept, I also want to contribute around having a better
>> integration
>> >>> with
>> >>> App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC
>> >>> integration.
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 on Raymond as Release Manager
>> >>>
>> >>> On 4/20/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Considering that we want to achieve this in about 3 weeks, I agree
>> that
>> >>>> we
>> >>>> focus on the stability and consumability for the core functions.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Other additional features are welcome. We can decide if they
>> will be
>> >>>> part
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> the release based on the readiness.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Are any of you going to volunteer to be the release manager? If
>> not,
>> I
>> >>>> can
>> >>>> give a try.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Raymond
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <js...@apache.org>
>> >>>> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:07 PM
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> >>>> >> Folks,
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Let's keep the ball rolling...Can someone please come up with a
>> >>>> master
>> >>>> >> list of "extensions, bindings, services, samples" which can then
>> >>>> >> help
>> >>>> >> decide what's going to get into the next release. Please start a
>> >>>> >> wiki
>> >>>> >> page to document the master list. Once we are done
>> documenting the
>> >>>> >> list. We can figure out which ones are MUST, which ones are nice
>> to
>> >>>> >> have, which ones are out of scope. Then we can work backwards to
>> >>>> >> figure out How tightly or loosely coupled each piece
>> is/should be
>> >>>> >> and
>> >>>> >> how we could decouple them if necessary using
>> >>>> >> interfaces/spi/whatever...
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Quote from Bert Lamb:
>> >>>> >> "I think there should be a voted upon core set of extensions,
>> >>>> >> bindings, services, samples, whatever that should be part of a
>> >>>> >> monolithic build."
>> >>>> >>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Quote from Ant Elder:
>> >>>> >> The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is
>> >>>> >> left
>> >>>> out
>> >>>> >> of
>> >>>> >> this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All
>> >>>> >> this
>> >>>> >> vote
>> >>>> >> is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in
>> this
>> >>>> next
>> >>>> >> release will have the same version and that a top level
>> pom.xmlwill
>> >>>> >> exist
>> >>>> >> to enable building all those modules at once.
>> >>>> >>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16155.html
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Thanks,
>> >>>> >> dims
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Hi all,
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I think we have made good progress since we initially started
>> this
>> >>>> > discussion. We have a simpler structure in trunk with a working >
>> >>>> top-down
>> >>>> > build. Samples and integration tests from the integration branch
>> have
>> >>>> been
>> >>>> > integrated back in trunk and most are now working.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > We have a more modular runtime with a simpler extension
>> mechanism.
>> >>>> > For
>> >>>> > example we have separate modules for the various models, the core
>> >>>> runtime
>> >>>> > and the Java component support. SPIs between the models and the
>> >>>> rest of
>> >>>> > the runtime have been refactored and should become more
>> stable. We
>> >>>> need
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> > do more work to further simplify the core runtime SPIs and
>> improve
>> >>>> > the
>> >>>> > core runtime but I think this is going in the right direction.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I'm also happy to see better support for the SCA 1.0 spec, with
>> >>>> support
>> >>>> > for most of the SCA 1.0 assembly XML, and some of the SCA 1.0
>> APIs.
>> >>>> > It
>> >>>> > looks like extensions are starting to work again in the trunk, >
>> >>>> including
>> >>>> > Web Services, Java and scripting components. It shouldn't be too
>> >>>> difficult
>> >>>> > to port some of the other extensions - Spring, JMS, JSON-RPC
>> - to
>> >>>> > the
>> >>>> > latest code base as well.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > So, the JavaOne conference is in three weeks, would it make sense
>> >>>> to > try
>> >>>> > to have a Tuscany release by then?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > We could integrate in that release what we already have
>> working in
>> >>>> trunk,
>> >>>> > mature and stabilize our SPIs and our extensibility story, and
>> this
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> > be a good foundation for people to use, embed or extend.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On top of that, I think it would be really cool to do some
>> work to:
>> >>>> > - Make it easier to assemble a distributed SCA domain with
>> components
>> >>>> > running on different runtimes / machines.
>> >>>> > - Improve our scripting and JSON-RPC support a little and show
>> how
>> to
>> >>>> > build Web 2.0 applications with Tuscany.
>> >>>> > - Improve our integration story with Tomcat and also start
>> looking
>> >>>> at > an
>> >>>> > integration with Geronimo.
>> >>>> > - Improve our Spring-based core variant implementation, as I
>> think
>> >>>> it's
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> > good example to show how to integrate Tuscany with other IoC >
>> >>>> containers.
>> >>>> > - Maybe start looking at the equivalent using Google Guice.
>> >>>> > - Start looking again at some of the extensions that we have in
>> >>>> contrib
>> >>>> or
>> >>>> > sandboxes (OSGI, ServiceMix, I think there's a Fractal
>> extension in
>> >>>> > sandbox, more databindings etc).
>> >>>> > - ...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I'm not sure we can do all of that in the next few weeks :)
>> but I'd
>> >>>> > like
>> >>>> > to get your thoughts and see what people in the community would
>> >>>> like to
>> >>>> > have in that next release...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > --
>> >>>> > Jean-Sebastien
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>> >>>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
+1 from me too.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Nominate Ant as the release manager was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1 I make Simon's words my words too...
On 4/24/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1. I would like to nominate Ant too.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Nash" <na...@hursley.ibm.com>
> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>
>
> > How about Ant as release manager for this release? He has been very
> > diligent in reviewing previous Tuscany releases with many helpful
> > comments. He has a good understanding of the Apache requirements
> > and process for publishing a release, and I think he is very well
> > qualified to take this on.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > Raymond Feng wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> After evaluating the features I would like to contribute to this
> release
> >> in the short timeframe, I don't think I would have enough time to
> handle
> >> the release as I'm new to this process. I would appreciate if somebody
> >> else with more experience volunteers to be the release manager. This
> way,
> >> I can learn more and get ready for the next time.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Raymond
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende"
> >> <lu...@gmail.com>
> >> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:25 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
> >>
> >>
> >>> +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core
> >>> functions,
> >>> other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a
> >>> Domain
> >>> concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration
> >>> with
> >>> App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC
> >>> integration.
> >>>
> >>> +1 on Raymond as Release Manager
> >>>
> >>> On 4/20/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Considering that we want to achieve this in about 3 weeks, I agree
> that
> >>>> we
> >>>> focus on the stability and consumability for the core functions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other additional features are welcome. We can decide if they will be
> >>>> part
> >>>> of
> >>>> the release based on the readiness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are any of you going to volunteer to be the release manager? If not,
> I
> >>>> can
> >>>> give a try.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Raymond
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <js...@apache.org>
> >>>> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:07 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>> >> Folks,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Let's keep the ball rolling...Can someone please come up with a
> >>>> master
> >>>> >> list of "extensions, bindings, services, samples" which can then
> >>>> >> help
> >>>> >> decide what's going to get into the next release. Please start a
> >>>> >> wiki
> >>>> >> page to document the master list. Once we are done documenting the
> >>>> >> list. We can figure out which ones are MUST, which ones are nice
> to
> >>>> >> have, which ones are out of scope. Then we can work backwards to
> >>>> >> figure out How tightly or loosely coupled each piece is/should be
> >>>> >> and
> >>>> >> how we could decouple them if necessary using
> >>>> >> interfaces/spi/whatever...
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Quote from Bert Lamb:
> >>>> >> "I think there should be a voted upon core set of extensions,
> >>>> >> bindings, services, samples, whatever that should be part of a
> >>>> >> monolithic build."
> >>>> >>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Quote from Ant Elder:
> >>>> >> The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is
> >>>> >> left
> >>>> out
> >>>> >> of
> >>>> >> this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All
> >>>> >> this
> >>>> >> vote
> >>>> >> is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this
> >>>> next
> >>>> >> release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xmlwill
> >>>> >> exist
> >>>> >> to enable building all those modules at once.
> >>>> >>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16155.html
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Thanks,
> >>>> >> dims
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Hi all,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I think we have made good progress since we initially started this
> >>>> > discussion. We have a simpler structure in trunk with a working >
> >>>> top-down
> >>>> > build. Samples and integration tests from the integration branch
> have
> >>>> been
> >>>> > integrated back in trunk and most are now working.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > We have a more modular runtime with a simpler extension mechanism.
> >>>> > For
> >>>> > example we have separate modules for the various models, the core
> >>>> runtime
> >>>> > and the Java component support. SPIs between the models and the
> >>>> rest of
> >>>> > the runtime have been refactored and should become more stable. We
> >>>> need
> >>>> to
> >>>> > do more work to further simplify the core runtime SPIs and improve
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > core runtime but I think this is going in the right direction.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I'm also happy to see better support for the SCA 1.0 spec, with
> >>>> support
> >>>> > for most of the SCA 1.0 assembly XML, and some of the SCA 1.0 APIs.
> >>>> > It
> >>>> > looks like extensions are starting to work again in the trunk, >
> >>>> including
> >>>> > Web Services, Java and scripting components. It shouldn't be too
> >>>> difficult
> >>>> > to port some of the other extensions - Spring, JMS, JSON-RPC - to
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > latest code base as well.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > So, the JavaOne conference is in three weeks, would it make sense
> >>>> to > try
> >>>> > to have a Tuscany release by then?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > We could integrate in that release what we already have working in
> >>>> trunk,
> >>>> > mature and stabilize our SPIs and our extensibility story, and this
> >>>> would
> >>>> > be a good foundation for people to use, embed or extend.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On top of that, I think it would be really cool to do some work to:
> >>>> > - Make it easier to assemble a distributed SCA domain with
> components
> >>>> > running on different runtimes / machines.
> >>>> > - Improve our scripting and JSON-RPC support a little and show how
> to
> >>>> > build Web 2.0 applications with Tuscany.
> >>>> > - Improve our integration story with Tomcat and also start looking
> >>>> at > an
> >>>> > integration with Geronimo.
> >>>> > - Improve our Spring-based core variant implementation, as I think
> >>>> it's
> >>>> a
> >>>> > good example to show how to integrate Tuscany with other IoC >
> >>>> containers.
> >>>> > - Maybe start looking at the equivalent using Google Guice.
> >>>> > - Start looking again at some of the extensions that we have in
> >>>> contrib
> >>>> or
> >>>> > sandboxes (OSGI, ServiceMix, I think there's a Fractal extension in
> >>>> > sandbox, more databindings etc).
> >>>> > - ...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I'm not sure we can do all of that in the next few weeks :) but I'd
> >>>> > like
> >>>> > to get your thoughts and see what people in the community would
> >>>> like to
> >>>> > have in that next release...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > Jean-Sebastien
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
Re: Nominate Ant as the release manager was: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
+1. I completely share Simon's observations
- Venkat
On 4/24/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1. I would like to nominate Ant too.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Nash" <na...@hursley.ibm.com>
> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>
>
> > How about Ant as release manager for this release? He has been very
> > diligent in reviewing previous Tuscany releases with many helpful
> > comments. He has a good understanding of the Apache requirements
> > and process for publishing a release, and I think he is very well
> > qualified to take this on.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > Raymond Feng wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> After evaluating the features I would like to contribute to this
> release
> >> in the short timeframe, I don't think I would have enough time to
> handle
> >> the release as I'm new to this process. I would appreciate if somebody
> >> else with more experience volunteers to be the release manager. This
> way,
> >> I can learn more and get ready for the next time.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Raymond
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende"
> >> <lu...@gmail.com>
> >> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:25 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
> >>
> >>
> >>> +1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core
> >>> functions,
> >>> other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a
> >>> Domain
> >>> concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration
> >>> with
> >>> App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC
> >>> integration.
> >>>
> >>> +1 on Raymond as Release Manager
> >>>
> >>> On 4/20/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Considering that we want to achieve this in about 3 weeks, I agree
> that
> >>>> we
> >>>> focus on the stability and consumability for the core functions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other additional features are welcome. We can decide if they will be
> >>>> part
> >>>> of
> >>>> the release based on the readiness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are any of you going to volunteer to be the release manager? If not,
> I
> >>>> can
> >>>> give a try.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Raymond
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <js...@apache.org>
> >>>> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:07 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>> >> Folks,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Let's keep the ball rolling...Can someone please come up with a
> >>>> master
> >>>> >> list of "extensions, bindings, services, samples" which can then
> >>>> >> help
> >>>> >> decide what's going to get into the next release. Please start a
> >>>> >> wiki
> >>>> >> page to document the master list. Once we are done documenting the
> >>>> >> list. We can figure out which ones are MUST, which ones are nice
> to
> >>>> >> have, which ones are out of scope. Then we can work backwards to
> >>>> >> figure out How tightly or loosely coupled each piece is/should be
> >>>> >> and
> >>>> >> how we could decouple them if necessary using
> >>>> >> interfaces/spi/whatever...
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Quote from Bert Lamb:
> >>>> >> "I think there should be a voted upon core set of extensions,
> >>>> >> bindings, services, samples, whatever that should be part of a
> >>>> >> monolithic build."
> >>>> >>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Quote from Ant Elder:
> >>>> >> The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is
> >>>> >> left
> >>>> out
> >>>> >> of
> >>>> >> this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All
> >>>> >> this
> >>>> >> vote
> >>>> >> is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this
> >>>> next
> >>>> >> release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xmlwill
> >>>> >> exist
> >>>> >> to enable building all those modules at once.
> >>>> >>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16155.html
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Thanks,
> >>>> >> dims
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Hi all,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I think we have made good progress since we initially started this
> >>>> > discussion. We have a simpler structure in trunk with a working >
> >>>> top-down
> >>>> > build. Samples and integration tests from the integration branch
> have
> >>>> been
> >>>> > integrated back in trunk and most are now working.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > We have a more modular runtime with a simpler extension mechanism.
> >>>> > For
> >>>> > example we have separate modules for the various models, the core
> >>>> runtime
> >>>> > and the Java component support. SPIs between the models and the
> >>>> rest of
> >>>> > the runtime have been refactored and should become more stable. We
> >>>> need
> >>>> to
> >>>> > do more work to further simplify the core runtime SPIs and improve
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > core runtime but I think this is going in the right direction.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I'm also happy to see better support for the SCA 1.0 spec, with
> >>>> support
> >>>> > for most of the SCA 1.0 assembly XML, and some of the SCA 1.0 APIs.
> >>>> > It
> >>>> > looks like extensions are starting to work again in the trunk, >
> >>>> including
> >>>> > Web Services, Java and scripting components. It shouldn't be too
> >>>> difficult
> >>>> > to port some of the other extensions - Spring, JMS, JSON-RPC - to
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > latest code base as well.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > So, the JavaOne conference is in three weeks, would it make sense
> >>>> to > try
> >>>> > to have a Tuscany release by then?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > We could integrate in that release what we already have working in
> >>>> trunk,
> >>>> > mature and stabilize our SPIs and our extensibility story, and this
> >>>> would
> >>>> > be a good foundation for people to use, embed or extend.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On top of that, I think it would be really cool to do some work to:
> >>>> > - Make it easier to assemble a distributed SCA domain with
> components
> >>>> > running on different runtimes / machines.
> >>>> > - Improve our scripting and JSON-RPC support a little and show how
> to
> >>>> > build Web 2.0 applications with Tuscany.
> >>>> > - Improve our integration story with Tomcat and also start looking
> >>>> at > an
> >>>> > integration with Geronimo.
> >>>> > - Improve our Spring-based core variant implementation, as I think
> >>>> it's
> >>>> a
> >>>> > good example to show how to integrate Tuscany with other IoC >
> >>>> containers.
> >>>> > - Maybe start looking at the equivalent using Google Guice.
> >>>> > - Start looking again at some of the extensions that we have in
> >>>> contrib
> >>>> or
> >>>> > sandboxes (OSGI, ServiceMix, I think there's a Fractal extension in
> >>>> > sandbox, more databindings etc).
> >>>> > - ...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I'm not sure we can do all of that in the next few weeks :) but I'd
> >>>> > like
> >>>> > to get your thoughts and see what people in the community would
> >>>> like to
> >>>> > have in that next release...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > Jean-Sebastien
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>