You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@syncope.apache.org by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org> on 2013/03/19 15:40:40 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Hi all,
currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support
for all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if
changing the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to the ones
attached there.
From the other side, this problem appear to be expected since
SYNCOPE-204 is planned only for 1.2.0.
Basically, I see for 1.1.0 a quite incoherent situation in which OSGi is
half-supported.
Since we are getting close to releasing stable 1.1.0, my proposal is to
reopen SYNCOPE-203, revert the provided changes and to move SYNCOPE-203,
SYNCOPE-204 and SYNCOPE-337 to 1.2.0.
We can contextually copy the current trunk to a new 1_1_X branch, move
trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and re-apply immediately the changes
from SYNCOPE-203 there.
WDYT?
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Massimiliano Perrone <ma...@tirasa.net>.
Il 19/03/2013 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
> Hi all,
> currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support
> for all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
>
> However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if
> changing the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to the ones
> attached there.
> From the other side, this problem appear to be expected since
> SYNCOPE-204 is planned only for 1.2.0.
>
> Basically, I see for 1.1.0 a quite incoherent situation in which OSGi
> is half-supported.
>
> Since we are getting close to releasing stable 1.1.0, my proposal is
> to reopen SYNCOPE-203, revert the provided changes and to move
> SYNCOPE-203, SYNCOPE-204 and SYNCOPE-337 to 1.2.0.
>
> We can contextually copy the current trunk to a new 1_1_X branch, move
> trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and re-apply immediately the changes
> from SYNCOPE-203 there.
>
> WDYT?
>
+1
--
Massimiliano Perrone
Tel +39 393 9121310
Tirasa S.r.l.
Viale D'Annunzio 267 - 65127 Pescara
Tel +39 0859116307 / FAX +39 0859111173
http://www.tirasa.net
Apache Syncope PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~massi/
"L'apprendere molte cose non insegna l'intelligenza"
(Eraclito)
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Marco Di Sabatino Di Diodoro <ma...@tirasa.net>.
On Mar 19, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
> Hi all,
> currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support for all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
>
> However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if changing the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to the ones attached there.
> From the other side, this problem appear to be expected since SYNCOPE-204 is planned only for 1.2.0.
>
> Basically, I see for 1.1.0 a quite incoherent situation in which OSGi is half-supported.
>
> Since we are getting close to releasing stable 1.1.0, my proposal is to reopen SYNCOPE-203, revert the provided changes and to move SYNCOPE-203, SYNCOPE-204 and SYNCOPE-337 to 1.2.0.
>
> We can contextually copy the current trunk to a new 1_1_X branch, move trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and re-apply immediately the changes from SYNCOPE-203 there.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
+1
M
--
Dott. Marco Di Sabatino Di Diodoro
Tel. +39 3939065570
Tirasa S.r.l.
Viale D'Annunzio 267 - 65127 Pescara
Tel +39 0859116307 / FAX +39 0859111173
http://www.tirasa.net
Apache Syncope PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~mdisabatino
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>.
Il giorno 19/mar/2013, alle ore 15.40, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
> Hi all,
> currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support for all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
>
> However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if changing the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to the ones attached there.
> From the other side, this problem appear to be expected since SYNCOPE-204 is planned only for 1.2.0.
>
> Basically, I see for 1.1.0 a quite incoherent situation in which OSGi is half-supported.
>
> Since we are getting close to releasing stable 1.1.0, my proposal is to reopen SYNCOPE-203, revert the provided changes and to move SYNCOPE-203, SYNCOPE-204 and SYNCOPE-337 to 1.2.0.
>
> We can contextually copy the current trunk to a new 1_1_X branch, move trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and re-apply immediately the changes from SYNCOPE-203 there.
>
> WDYT?
+1
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
No update at this point afaik. I removed the "fix for" version that was
1.1.1. If we don't get it done in time for 1.1.2 then I'll move it to 1.2.
Colm.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
ilgrosso@apache.org> wrote:
> Gents,
> any news about this?
>
> Regards.
>
> On 02/04/2013 14:53, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
>
>> Sounds good thanks!
>>
>> Colm.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>> <il...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2013 13:55, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>
>>>> We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
>>>> problems seems to be a conflict between the different versions of Spring
>>>> used by Syncope + CXF, which is resulting in the exceptions reported in
>>>> SYNCOPE-337.
>>>>
>>>> For the moment I propose moving SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1. If we can't fix
>>>> the
>>>> OSGi issues in a relatively simple way then we can move it to 1.2. I
>>>>
>>> would
>>>
>>>> like to keep the changes made as part of SYNCOPE-203 in place, as it
>>>> doesn't affect the Tomcat deployment + it would require additional
>>>>
>>> changes
>>>
>>>> on some downstream code that we have.
>>>>
>>> Fine to me: I'll proceed then to:
>>>
>>> 1. create new branch 1_1_X from trunk + set trunk version to
>>> 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
>>> 2. create Jenkins job for 1_1_X
>>> 3. create JIRA version 1.1.1
>>> 4. move SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1
>>>
>>> Nothing will be done in respect of SYNCOPE-203.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM, ilgrosso <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they
>>>>>>
>>>>> are
>>>>>
>>>>>> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but
>>>>>>
>>>>> not
>>>
>>>> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>> release
>>>>>
>>>>>> and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to
>>>>>>
>>>>> find
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>> solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not
>>>>>>
>>>>> found
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>> solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release
>>>>>>
>>>>> (1.1.1
>>>
>>>> if
>>>>>> it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this work?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Colm,
>>>>> is there any progress about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should be able to at least think starting the 1.1.0 release
>>>>> process this week, hence understanding how to handle the OSGi features
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>
>>>> quite important right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/<http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/>
>
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Gents,
any news about this?
Regards.
On 02/04/2013 14:53, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Sounds good thanks!
>
> Colm.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
> <il...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2013 13:55, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>
>>> We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
>>> problems seems to be a conflict between the different versions of Spring
>>> used by Syncope + CXF, which is resulting in the exceptions reported in
>>> SYNCOPE-337.
>>>
>>> For the moment I propose moving SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1. If we can't fix the
>>> OSGi issues in a relatively simple way then we can move it to 1.2. I
>> would
>>> like to keep the changes made as part of SYNCOPE-203 in place, as it
>>> doesn't affect the Tomcat deployment + it would require additional
>> changes
>>> on some downstream code that we have.
>> Fine to me: I'll proceed then to:
>>
>> 1. create new branch 1_1_X from trunk + set trunk version to
>> 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
>> 2. create Jenkins job for 1_1_X
>> 3. create JIRA version 1.1.1
>> 4. move SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1
>>
>> Nothing will be done in respect of SYNCOPE-203.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM, ilgrosso <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote
>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they
>>>> are
>>>>> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but
>> not
>>>>> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0
>>>> release
>>>>> and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to
>> find
>>>>> a
>>>>> solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not
>> found
>>>>> a
>>>>> solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release
>> (1.1.1
>>>>> if
>>>>> it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this work?
>>>> Hi Colm,
>>>> is there any progress about this?
>>>>
>>>> I think we should be able to at least think starting the 1.1.0 release
>>>> process this week, hence understanding how to handle the OSGi features
>> is
>>>> quite important right now.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
Sounds good thanks!
Colm.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
<il...@apache.org>wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 13:55, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> > Hi Francesco,
> >
> > We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
> > problems seems to be a conflict between the different versions of Spring
> > used by Syncope + CXF, which is resulting in the exceptions reported in
> > SYNCOPE-337.
> >
> > For the moment I propose moving SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1. If we can't fix the
> > OSGi issues in a relatively simple way then we can move it to 1.2. I
> would
> > like to keep the changes made as part of SYNCOPE-203 in place, as it
> > doesn't affect the Tomcat deployment + it would require additional
> changes
> > on some downstream code that we have.
>
> Fine to me: I'll proceed then to:
>
> 1. create new branch 1_1_X from trunk + set trunk version to
> 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
> 2. create Jenkins job for 1_1_X
> 3. create JIRA version 1.1.1
> 4. move SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1
>
> Nothing will be done in respect of SYNCOPE-203.
>
> Regards.
>
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM, ilgrosso <il...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote
> >>> Hi Francesco,
> >>>
> >>> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they
> >> are
> >>> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but
> not
> >>> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
> >>>
> >>> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0
> >> release
> >>> and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to
> find
> >>> a
> >>> solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not
> found
> >>> a
> >>> solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release
> (1.1.1
> >>> if
> >>> it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
> >>>
> >>> Does this work?
> >> Hi Colm,
> >> is there any progress about this?
> >>
> >> I think we should be able to at least think starting the 1.1.0 release
> >> process this week, hence understanding how to handle the OSGi features
> is
> >> quite important right now.
> >>
> >> Regards.
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 02/04/2013 13:55, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
> problems seems to be a conflict between the different versions of Spring
> used by Syncope + CXF, which is resulting in the exceptions reported in
> SYNCOPE-337.
>
> For the moment I propose moving SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1. If we can't fix the
> OSGi issues in a relatively simple way then we can move it to 1.2. I would
> like to keep the changes made as part of SYNCOPE-203 in place, as it
> doesn't affect the Tomcat deployment + it would require additional changes
> on some downstream code that we have.
Fine to me: I'll proceed then to:
1. create new branch 1_1_X from trunk + set trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
2. create Jenkins job for 1_1_X
3. create JIRA version 1.1.1
4. move SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1
Nothing will be done in respect of SYNCOPE-203.
Regards.
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM, ilgrosso <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote
>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>
>>> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they
>> are
>>> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
>>> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>>>
>>> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0
>> release
>>> and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to find
>>> a
>>> solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not found
>>> a
>>> solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release (1.1.1
>>> if
>>> it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
>>>
>>> Does this work?
>> Hi Colm,
>> is there any progress about this?
>>
>> I think we should be able to at least think starting the 1.1.0 release
>> process this week, hence understanding how to handle the OSGi features is
>> quite important right now.
>>
>> Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
Hi Francesco,
We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
problems seems to be a conflict between the different versions of Spring
used by Syncope + CXF, which is resulting in the exceptions reported in
SYNCOPE-337.
For the moment I propose moving SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1. If we can't fix the
OSGi issues in a relatively simple way then we can move it to 1.2. I would
like to keep the changes made as part of SYNCOPE-203 in place, as it
doesn't affect the Tomcat deployment + it would require additional changes
on some downstream code that we have.
Colm.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM, ilgrosso <il...@apache.org> wrote:
> Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote
> > Hi Francesco,
> >
> > I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they
> are
> > not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
> > claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
> >
> > I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0
> release
> > and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to find
> > a
> > solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not found
> > a
> > solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release (1.1.1
> > if
> > it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
> >
> > Does this work?
>
> Hi Colm,
> is there any progress about this?
>
> I think we should be able to at least think starting the 1.1.0 release
> process this week, hence understanding how to handle the OSGi features is
> quite important right now.
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Move-full-OSGi-support-to-1-2-0-tp5713275p5713409.html
> Sent from the syncope-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by ilgrosso <il...@apache.org>.
Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>
> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0 release
> and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to find
> a
> solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not found
> a
> solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release (1.1.1
> if
> it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
>
> Does this work?
Hi Colm,
is there any progress about this?
I think we should be able to at least think starting the 1.1.0 release
process this week, hence understanding how to handle the OSGi features is
quite important right now.
Regards.
--
View this message in context: http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Move-full-OSGi-support-to-1-2-0-tp5713275p5713409.html
Sent from the syncope-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Andrei Shakirin <as...@talend.com>.
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>
> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0 release and
> so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to find a
> solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not found a
> solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release (1.1.1 if it
> can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
>
> Does this work?
>
> Colm.
+1
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
> <ilgrosso@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support
> > for all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
> >
> > However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if
> > changing the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to the ones
> attached there.
> > From the other side, this problem appear to be expected since
> > SYNCOPE-204 is planned only for 1.2.0.
> >
> > Basically, I see for 1.1.0 a quite incoherent situation in which OSGi
> > is half-supported.
> >
> > Since we are getting close to releasing stable 1.1.0, my proposal is
> > to reopen SYNCOPE-203, revert the provided changes and to move
> > SYNCOPE-203,
> > SYNCOPE-204 and SYNCOPE-337 to 1.2.0.
> >
> > We can contextually copy the current trunk to a new 1_1_X branch, move
> > trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and re-apply immediately the changes
> > from
> > SYNCOPE-203 there.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --
> > Francesco Chicchiriccò
> >
> > ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> > http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/<http://people.apache.org/~ilgros
> > so/>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Colm O hEigeartaigh
>
> Talend Community Coder
> http://coders.talend.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 19/03/2013 16:33, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
> not breaking anything.
They don't break anything as long as you don't use OSGi.
This of course does not apply to SYNCOPE-239 (e.g. OSGi support for the
client).
> I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>
> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0 release
> and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to find a
> solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not found a
> solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release (1.1.1 if
> it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
Fine to me.
Regards.
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support for
>> all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
>>
>> However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if changing
>> the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to the ones attached there.
>> From the other side, this problem appear to be expected since SYNCOPE-204
>> is planned only for 1.2.0.
>>
>> Basically, I see for 1.1.0 a quite incoherent situation in which OSGi is
>> half-supported.
>>
>> Since we are getting close to releasing stable 1.1.0, my proposal is to
>> reopen SYNCOPE-203, revert the provided changes and to move SYNCOPE-203,
>> SYNCOPE-204 and SYNCOPE-337 to 1.2.0.
>>
>> We can contextually copy the current trunk to a new 1_1_X branch, move
>> trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and re-apply immediately the changes from
>> SYNCOPE-203 there.
>>
>> WDYT?
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Move full OSGi support to 1.2.0
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
Hi Francesco,
I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0 release
and so I propose the following. Give us until the end of the week to find a
solution for SYNCOPE-337 (and any related problems). If we have not found a
solution by then, then this JIRA can be moved to the next release (1.1.1 if
it can be considered a "bug" based on 1.1.0, otherwise 1.2).
Does this work?
Colm.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org
> wrote:
> Hi all,
> currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support for
> all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
>
> However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if changing
> the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to the ones attached there.
> From the other side, this problem appear to be expected since SYNCOPE-204
> is planned only for 1.2.0.
>
> Basically, I see for 1.1.0 a quite incoherent situation in which OSGi is
> half-supported.
>
> Since we are getting close to releasing stable 1.1.0, my proposal is to
> reopen SYNCOPE-203, revert the provided changes and to move SYNCOPE-203,
> SYNCOPE-204 and SYNCOPE-337 to 1.2.0.
>
> We can contextually copy the current trunk to a new 1_1_X branch, move
> trunk version to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and re-apply immediately the changes from
> SYNCOPE-203 there.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/<http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/>
>
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com