You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2009/09/01 10:09:59 UTC
2.0 M4 release?
Its been nearly 6 weeks since the 2.0 M3 release so should we be
thinking about another release? We probably have enough content now -
the Assembly otests are nearly all passing, the're a new JSONP
binding, and the dynamic domain is starting to come together. So would
a M4 in a couple of weeks be doable? Or a bit longer to fit in more?
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > Ok, how I take an M4 branch towards the end of next week, that gives a
>>> > bit of time for everyone to make a bit of progress on what they're
>>> > working on and still gives enough time to make sure M4 gets out before
>>> > the end of the month.
>>> >
>>> > ...ant
>>> >
>>>
>>> Can you give us some heads up one or two days before you cut the
>>> branch. I want to try to avoid lots of merges if possible.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do people think about delaying M4 till later in next week to give a
>> bit more time to complete more of the otest work? It seems like both the
>> assembly and Java CAA otests are really close now so we may be able to get
>> them all passing if we hold M4 till next week.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Ok, how I take an M4 branch towards the end of next week, that gives a
>> > bit of time for everyone to make a bit of progress on what they're
>> > working on and still gives enough time to make sure M4 gets out before
>> > the end of the month.
>> >
>> > ...ant
>> >
>>
>> Can you give us some heads up one or two days before you cut the
>> branch. I want to try to avoid lots of merges if possible.
>>
>>
>>
> What do people think about delaying M4 till later in next week to give a
> bit more time to complete more of the otest work? It seems like both the
> assembly and Java CAA otests are really close now so we may be able to get
> them all passing if we hold M4 till next week.
>
> ...ant
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
Its the file in trunk, i'll add in those updates.
...ant
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see the text in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-2.0-M4/CHANGES.
> Is it the right file?
>
> I would like to add a few more:
>
> * Improve the implementation of OSGi remote services with SCA configuration
> type that supports dynamic OSGi remote service admin, including import,
> export and discovery
> * Add extension points for builders that can build implementation, binding
> and policy types
> * Add a Deployer utility to facilitate deployment-related functions
> * Improve the monitor usage so that monitors are isolated between requests
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:08 PM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: 2.0 M4 release?
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'll think about other improvements and add here if I remember others.
>>>
>>
>> Please just update the file directly.
>>
>> ...ant
>
>
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
I don't see the text in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-2.0-M4/CHANGES.
Is it the right file?
I would like to add a few more:
* Improve the implementation of OSGi remote services with SCA configuration
type that supports dynamic OSGi remote service admin, including import,
export and discovery
* Add extension points for builders that can build implementation, binding
and policy types
* Add a Deployer utility to facilitate deployment-related functions
* Improve the monitor usage so that monitors are isolated between requests
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:08 PM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: 2.0 M4 release?
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'll think about other improvements and add here if I remember others.
>>
>
> Please just update the file directly.
>
> ...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll think about other improvements and add here if I remember others.
>
Please just update the file directly.
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> If anyone has any changes or additions they would like included in the
> CHANGES file for the M4 release please update it now (today). It
> currently has for M4:
>
> Highlights include:
> - Passes the OASIS conformance test suite for the SCA-J CAA Specification!
> - Almost passes the OASIS conformance test suite for the SCA Assembly
> Specification with
> a small number of test failures that will be fixed in the next release
> - Support for <binding.jms> and the OASIS SCA JMS specification
> - Support for <binding.ejb> on references and partial support of the
> OASIS SCA EJB specification
> - A new Tuscany specific binding for JSONP support
> - Several Tuscany specific extensions ported up from the 1.x runtime
> including bindings for ATOM,
> HTTP, JSON-RPC, and implementation web clients
We also added support for JSON-RPC references, which was not available in 1.x
> - Improved distributed SCA domain support
> - Numerous bug fixes and improvements
>
> ...ant
>
We should mention the cloud support and that we have been able to
deploy Tuscany distributed applications in Google AppEngine and IBM
Cloud.
Also, there were various improvements on the SCA Runtime to be more
flexible and make use of extensions (e.g for interface visitors, class
introspection, etc)
I'll think about other improvements and add here if I remember others.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
If anyone has any changes or additions they would like included in the
CHANGES file for the M4 release please update it now (today). It
currently has for M4:
Highlights include:
- Passes the OASIS conformance test suite for the SCA-J CAA Specification!
- Almost passes the OASIS conformance test suite for the SCA Assembly
Specification with
a small number of test failures that will be fixed in the next release
- Support for <binding.jms> and the OASIS SCA JMS specification
- Support for <binding.ejb> on references and partial support of the
OASIS SCA EJB specification
- A new Tuscany specific binding for JSONP support
- Several Tuscany specific extensions ported up from the 1.x runtime
including bindings for ATOM,
HTTP, JSON-RPC, and implementation web clients
- Improved distributed SCA domain support
- Numerous bug fixes and improvements
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
I'm happy to merge it, just wanted to ask first in case it was work in
progress you weren't expecting to get included.
...ant
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I made these changes to bring up Tuscany and OSGi remote services with
> Apache Felix 2.0.1. I was able to successfully load Tuscany distribution and
> run the distributed OSGi calculator samples after removing a few offending
> bundles that conflict with system packages.
>
> I'll leave the decision to you if you want to merge or not.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:29 AM
> To: "Raymond Feng" <en...@gmail.com>
> Cc: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: 2.0 M4 release?
>
>>>
>>> I don't think we should put off M4 any longer so I'm going to start on
>>> it tomorrow and try to get an RC out by the end of the week. Shout now
>>> if you've any big changes that you'd like to get in before I do this.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> You've done a bunch of changes to trunk overnight, do you want those
>> merged to the M4 branch and included in the M4 release? Do you have
>> any more planned that you're going to want included that I should hold
>> off cutting an RC4?
>>
>> ...ant
>
>
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I made these changes to bring up Tuscany and OSGi remote services with
Apache Felix 2.0.1. I was able to successfully load Tuscany distribution and
run the distributed OSGi calculator samples after removing a few offending
bundles that conflict with system packages.
I'll leave the decision to you if you want to merge or not.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:29 AM
To: "Raymond Feng" <en...@gmail.com>
Cc: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: 2.0 M4 release?
>>
>> I don't think we should put off M4 any longer so I'm going to start on
>> it tomorrow and try to get an RC out by the end of the week. Shout now
>> if you've any big changes that you'd like to get in before I do this.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> You've done a bunch of changes to trunk overnight, do you want those
> merged to the M4 branch and included in the M4 release? Do you have
> any more planned that you're going to want included that I should hold
> off cutting an RC4?
>
> ...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
>
> I don't think we should put off M4 any longer so I'm going to start on
> it tomorrow and try to get an RC out by the end of the week. Shout now
> if you've any big changes that you'd like to get in before I do this.
>
> ...ant
>
You've done a bunch of changes to trunk overnight, do you want those
merged to the M4 branch and included in the M4 release? Do you have
any more planned that you're going to want included that I should hold
off cutting an RC4?
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > Ok, how I take an M4 branch towards the end of next week, that gives a
>>> > bit of time for everyone to make a bit of progress on what they're
>>> > working on and still gives enough time to make sure M4 gets out before
>>> > the end of the month.
>>> >
>>> > ...ant
>>> >
>>>
>>> Can you give us some heads up one or two days before you cut the
>>> branch. I want to try to avoid lots of merges if possible.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do people think about delaying M4 till later in next week to give a bit
>> more time to complete more of the otest work? It seems like both the
>> assembly and Java CAA otests are really close now so we may be able to get
>> them all passing if we hold M4 till next week.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>
> Ok. I've create a 2.0-M4 JIRA category
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY/fixforversion/12314324
> and added JIRAs for the remaining things I'd like to see done in M4.
> So far thats the 7 JIRAs (5 for SCA-J CAA tests and 2 for the JMS
> binding), and theres also whatever is remaining for the Assembly
> compliance tests to add to that.
>
> ...ant
>
I don't think we should put off M4 any longer so I'm going to start on
it tomorrow and try to get an RC out by the end of the week. Shout now
if you've any big changes that you'd like to get in before I do this.
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Ok, how I take an M4 branch towards the end of next week, that gives a
>> > bit of time for everyone to make a bit of progress on what they're
>> > working on and still gives enough time to make sure M4 gets out before
>> > the end of the month.
>> >
>> > ...ant
>> >
>>
>> Can you give us some heads up one or two days before you cut the
>> branch. I want to try to avoid lots of merges if possible.
>>
>>
>
> What do people think about delaying M4 till later in next week to give a bit
> more time to complete more of the otest work? It seems like both the
> assembly and Java CAA otests are really close now so we may be able to get
> them all passing if we hold M4 till next week.
>
> ...ant
>
>
Ok. I've create a 2.0-M4 JIRA category
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY/fixforversion/12314324
and added JIRAs for the remaining things I'd like to see done in M4.
So far thats the 7 JIRAs (5 for SCA-J CAA tests and 2 for the JMS
binding), and theres also whatever is remaining for the Assembly
compliance tests to add to that.
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
+1
Simon
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Ok, how I take an M4 branch towards the end of next week, that gives a
> > bit of time for everyone to make a bit of progress on what they're
> > working on and still gives enough time to make sure M4 gets out before
> > the end of the month.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> Can you give us some heads up one or two days before you cut the
> branch. I want to try to avoid lots of merges if possible.
>
>
>
What do people think about delaying M4 till later in next week to give a bit
more time to complete more of the otest work? It seems like both the
assembly and Java CAA otests are really close now so we may be able to get
them all passing if we hold M4 till next week.
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ok, how I take an M4 branch towards the end of next week, that gives a
> bit of time for everyone to make a bit of progress on what they're
> working on and still gives enough time to make sure M4 gets out before
> the end of the month.
>
> ...ant
>
Can you give us some heads up one or two days before you cut the
branch. I want to try to avoid lots of merges if possible.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
+1
Simon
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Its been nearly 6 weeks since the 2.0 M3 release so should we be
>>>> thinking about another release? We probably have enough content now -
>>>> the Assembly otests are nearly all passing, the're a new JSONP
>>>> binding, and the dynamic domain is starting to come together. So would
>>>> a M4 in a couple of weeks be doable? Or a bit longer to fit in more?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent idea. I think we should update the CHANGES file and see how
>>> it looks. The SCAClient changes you mention on the other thread [1]
>>> sound useful to get in. Also I'd like to add the builder tidy and
>>> basic policy (not including external attachment) support to the list
>>> as these are in flight and have a chance of being done in the next
>>> couple of weeks.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40tuscany.apache.org/msg09208.html
>>>
>>
>> This is taking longer due to the bringing up the JMS binding taking up
>> the time and I'm out on vacation for a while so it looks like early
>> October is now a more realistic date for the M4 release.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Apachecon is approaching quickly, and it would be good to have a
> release before the conference. I'd like to finish the porting of the
> Web 2.0 bindings and get better cloud support ready in the next couple
> weeks and then help on getting the release out.
>
Ok, how I take an M4 branch towards the end of next week, that gives a
bit of time for everyone to make a bit of progress on what they're
working on and still gives enough time to make sure M4 gets out before
the end of the month.
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Its been nearly 6 weeks since the 2.0 M3 release so should we be
>>> thinking about another release? We probably have enough content now -
>>> the Assembly otests are nearly all passing, the're a new JSONP
>>> binding, and the dynamic domain is starting to come together. So would
>>> a M4 in a couple of weeks be doable? Or a bit longer to fit in more?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Excellent idea. I think we should update the CHANGES file and see how
>> it looks. The SCAClient changes you mention on the other thread [1]
>> sound useful to get in. Also I'd like to add the builder tidy and
>> basic policy (not including external attachment) support to the list
>> as these are in flight and have a chance of being done in the next
>> couple of weeks.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40tuscany.apache.org/msg09208.html
>>
>
> This is taking longer due to the bringing up the JMS binding taking up
> the time and I'm out on vacation for a while so it looks like early
> October is now a more realistic date for the M4 release.
>
> ...ant
>
Apachecon is approaching quickly, and it would be good to have a
release before the conference. I'd like to finish the porting of the
Web 2.0 bindings and get better cloud support ready in the next couple
weeks and then help on getting the release out.
Thoughts ?
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Its been nearly 6 weeks since the 2.0 M3 release so should we be
>> thinking about another release? We probably have enough content now -
>> the Assembly otests are nearly all passing, the're a new JSONP
>> binding, and the dynamic domain is starting to come together. So would
>> a M4 in a couple of weeks be doable? Or a bit longer to fit in more?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Excellent idea. I think we should update the CHANGES file and see how
> it looks. The SCAClient changes you mention on the other thread [1]
> sound useful to get in. Also I'd like to add the builder tidy and
> basic policy (not including external attachment) support to the list
> as these are in flight and have a chance of being done in the next
> couple of weeks.
>
> Simon
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40tuscany.apache.org/msg09208.html
>
This is taking longer due to the bringing up the JMS binding taking up
the time and I'm out on vacation for a while so it looks like early
October is now a more realistic date for the M4 release.
...ant
Re: 2.0 M4 release?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its been nearly 6 weeks since the 2.0 M3 release so should we be
> thinking about another release? We probably have enough content now -
> the Assembly otests are nearly all passing, the're a new JSONP
> binding, and the dynamic domain is starting to come together. So would
> a M4 in a couple of weeks be doable? Or a bit longer to fit in more?
>
> ...ant
>
Excellent idea. I think we should update the CHANGES file and see how
it looks. The SCAClient changes you mention on the other thread [1]
sound useful to get in. Also I'd like to add the builder tidy and
basic policy (not including external attachment) support to the list
as these are in flight and have a chance of being done in the next
couple of weeks.
Simon
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40tuscany.apache.org/msg09208.html