You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com> on 2012/05/08 13:19:34 UTC
Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Hi all,
I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or if
you think it all just looks terrible.
Holly
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
On 8 May 2012 12:19, Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
> to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
> starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>
> I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
> versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
> across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
> things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or if
> you think it all just looks terrible.
Sounds good to me Holly! I'll get in touch sometime next week re JMX.
Cheers,
David
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Guillaume,
I was very grateful you asked about the package versions! It was while
I was checking the answer to your question that I discovered that
trunk still had the old package versions, because of my snafu with the
merge. At the moment all the packages are actually now at 1.0.0,
except for two 0.1.0 packages in subsystems which were committed after
I did my original branch. Mixing 1.0.0 and 0.1.0 isn't ideal, and I
agree we should have a discussion about what versions we should be
using for those components. I don't think we should include spi-fly or
subsystems in the current release, so we can have that discussion
concurrently with the release work.
Once I've got the parent components released, I'll start work on the
main release. My original intention was to roll through releasing
bundles incrementally, but I'm now thinking that because of the
overhead of checking and voting on each release for pmc members, it
might be better to release everything in a big lump, at least this
time. Either way, my plan is to do everything except for spi-fly,
subsystems, jmx-next, and everything in sandbox. Are there any others
which aren't ready for release?
These are the work items I think should be done before the release:
Guillaume's bug fixes
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-827 - ARIES-778 broke the
ability to use a composite bundles isolation implementation on equinox
3.7
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-845 - Transaction wrapper
doesn't work on Java 5
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-853 - Switch parent
dependencies to 1.0.0 from 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-837 - Modify default of
Export-EJB: header to be ALL when empty string
Any I've missed?
We also want to run the compliance tests.
Holly
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a couple of bugs fixes I'll commit on monday.
> Btw, I've asked about the package versions (wether we should upgrade
> them to 1.0 or not) but had no answers.
> I think it's worth discussing that.
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> I verified the signatures, the md5/sha1 files, built it (not that
>> there anything to build!) and ran a RAT check.
>>
>> I also added a page with instructions on how to verify our release
>> artifacts [1].
>>
>> [1] http://aries.apache.org/development/verifyingrelease.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On 16 May 2012 12:53, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Holly,
>>>
>>> Just making sure, are you planning to release the current JMX
>>> implementation as part of 1.0 as well?
>>> I think it would be good to do so, shortly after we can then put the
>>> jmx-next code in place and release that as a 1.1 or something.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 15 May 2012 17:11, Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Holly,
>>>>>
>>>>> Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
>>>>> required for a 1.0 release?
>>>>
>>>> I think that's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-582, which
>>>> is resolved.
>>>>
>>>>> Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
>>>>> differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
>>>>> doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
>>>>> do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
>>>>> implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
>>>>> behave weirdly isn't good.
>>>>
>>>> Aha, this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-827, isn't
>>>> it? Which is unresolved, sadly.
>>>>
>>>>> I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
>>>>> blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
>>>>> if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
>>>>> passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
>>>>> failures were due to bad tests).
>>>>
>>>> I think this makes sense. I'll have a look at running the Blueprint
>>>> CTs first, since that's the component I'm intending to release first.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
>>>>>> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
>>>>>> > to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
>>>>>> > starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
>>>>>> > versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
>>>>>> > across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
>>>>>> > things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> > you think it all just looks terrible.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Holly
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alasdair Nottingham
>>>>> not@apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> http://fusesource.com
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
I have a couple of bugs fixes I'll commit on monday.
Btw, I've asked about the package versions (wether we should upgrade
them to 1.0 or not) but had no answers.
I think it's worth discussing that.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I verified the signatures, the md5/sha1 files, built it (not that
> there anything to build!) and ran a RAT check.
>
> I also added a page with instructions on how to verify our release
> artifacts [1].
>
> [1] http://aries.apache.org/development/verifyingrelease.html
>
> Cheers,
> Jeremy
>
> On 16 May 2012 12:53, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Holly,
>>
>> Just making sure, are you planning to release the current JMX
>> implementation as part of 1.0 as well?
>> I think it would be good to do so, shortly after we can then put the
>> jmx-next code in place and release that as a 1.1 or something.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 15 May 2012 17:11, Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Comments inline.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Holly,
>>>>
>>>> Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
>>>> required for a 1.0 release?
>>>
>>> I think that's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-582, which
>>> is resolved.
>>>
>>>> Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
>>>> differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
>>>> doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
>>>> do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
>>>> implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
>>>> behave weirdly isn't good.
>>>
>>> Aha, this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-827, isn't
>>> it? Which is unresolved, sadly.
>>>
>>>> I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
>>>> blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
>>>> if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
>>>> passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
>>>> failures were due to bad tests).
>>>
>>> I think this makes sense. I'll have a look at running the Blueprint
>>> CTs first, since that's the component I'm intending to release first.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Alasdair
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
>>>>
>>>> On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
>>>>> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
>>>>> > to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
>>>>> > starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
>>>>> > versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
>>>>> > across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
>>>>> > things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
>>>>> if
>>>>> > you think it all just looks terrible.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Holly
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alasdair Nottingham
>>>> not@apache.org
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
FuseSource, Integration everywhere
http://fusesource.com
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
+1
I verified the signatures, the md5/sha1 files, built it (not that
there anything to build!) and ran a RAT check.
I also added a page with instructions on how to verify our release
artifacts [1].
[1] http://aries.apache.org/development/verifyingrelease.html
Cheers,
Jeremy
On 16 May 2012 12:53, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Holly,
>
> Just making sure, are you planning to release the current JMX
> implementation as part of 1.0 as well?
> I think it would be good to do so, shortly after we can then put the
> jmx-next code in place and release that as a 1.1 or something.
>
> WDYT?
>
> David
>
> On 15 May 2012 17:11, Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Comments inline.
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Holly,
>>>
>>> Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
>>> required for a 1.0 release?
>>
>> I think that's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-582, which
>> is resolved.
>>
>>> Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
>>> differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
>>> doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
>>> do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
>>> implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
>>> behave weirdly isn't good.
>>
>> Aha, this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-827, isn't
>> it? Which is unresolved, sadly.
>>
>>> I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
>>> blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
>>> if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
>>> passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
>>> failures were due to bad tests).
>>
>> I think this makes sense. I'll have a look at running the Blueprint
>> CTs first, since that's the component I'm intending to release first.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Alasdair
>>>
>>> P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
>>>
>>> On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
>>>> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
>>>> > to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
>>>> > starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
>>>> > versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
>>>> > across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
>>>> > things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
>>>> if
>>>> > you think it all just looks terrible.
>>>> >
>>>> > Holly
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alasdair Nottingham
>>> not@apache.org
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com>.
Hi David,
[comments inline]
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, David Bosschaert
<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just making sure, are you planning to release the current JMX
> implementation as part of 1.0 as well?
> I think it would be good to do so, shortly after we can then put the
> jmx-next code in place and release that as a 1.1 or something.
>
> WDYT?
I think that's a good plan. I had vaguely assumed we wouldn't want to
release JMX since the jmx-next work was queued up to go. Thinking
about it, releasing the current implementation as 1.0.0 and then
moving to 1.1 once we've switched to jmx-next is much better.
Holly
>
> David
>
> On 15 May 2012 17:11, Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Comments inline.
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Holly,
>>>
>>> Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
>>> required for a 1.0 release?
>>
>> I think that's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-582, which
>> is resolved.
>>
>>> Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
>>> differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
>>> doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
>>> do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
>>> implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
>>> behave weirdly isn't good.
>>
>> Aha, this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-827, isn't
>> it? Which is unresolved, sadly.
>>
>>> I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
>>> blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
>>> if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
>>> passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
>>> failures were due to bad tests).
>>
>> I think this makes sense. I'll have a look at running the Blueprint
>> CTs first, since that's the component I'm intending to release first.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Alasdair
>>>
>>> P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
>>>
>>> On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
>>>> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
>>>> > to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
>>>> > starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
>>>> > versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
>>>> > across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
>>>> > things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
>>>> if
>>>> > you think it all just looks terrible.
>>>> >
>>>> > Holly
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alasdair Nottingham
>>> not@apache.org
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Holly,
Just making sure, are you planning to release the current JMX
implementation as part of 1.0 as well?
I think it would be good to do so, shortly after we can then put the
jmx-next code in place and release that as a 1.1 or something.
WDYT?
David
On 15 May 2012 17:11, Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Holly,
>>
>> Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
>> required for a 1.0 release?
>
> I think that's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-582, which
> is resolved.
>
>> Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
>> differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
>> doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
>> do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
>> implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
>> behave weirdly isn't good.
>
> Aha, this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-827, isn't
> it? Which is unresolved, sadly.
>
>> I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
>> blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
>> if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
>> passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
>> failures were due to bad tests).
>
> I think this makes sense. I'll have a look at running the Blueprint
> CTs first, since that's the component I'm intending to release first.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Alasdair
>>
>> P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
>>
>> On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
>>> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
>>> > to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
>>> > starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>>> >
>>> > I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
>>> > versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
>>> > across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
>>> > things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
>>> if
>>> > you think it all just looks terrible.
>>> >
>>> > Holly
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> ------------------------
>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alasdair Nottingham
>> not@apache.org
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by Holly Cummins <ho...@googlemail.com>.
Comments inline.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> Holly,
>
> Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
> required for a 1.0 release?
I think that's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-582, which
is resolved.
> Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
> differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
> doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
> do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
> implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
> behave weirdly isn't good.
Aha, this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-827, isn't
it? Which is unresolved, sadly.
> I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
> blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
> if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
> passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
> failures were due to bad tests).
I think this makes sense. I'll have a look at running the Blueprint
CTs first, since that's the component I'm intending to release first.
>
> Thanks
> Alasdair
>
> P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
>
> On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
>> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
>> > to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
>> > starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>> >
>> > I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
>> > versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
>> > across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
>> > things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
>> if
>> > you think it all just looks terrible.
>> >
>> > Holly
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alasdair Nottingham
> not@apache.org
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On May 14, 2012, at 4:40 AM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
> Holly,
>
> Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
> required for a 1.0 release? Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
> differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
> doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
> do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
> implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
> behave weirdly isn't good.
Is there a description somewhere of what this differing behavior is and how you want it to work? IIRC when I introduced the resolver hook support I figured that if you were on a 4.3 framework you wouldn't have the non-spec composite bundles so using only the resolver hooks would be ok. I guess this isn't quite accurate -- I think the equinox 4.3 releases also include composite bundle support. Do you think that on equinox 4.3 both composite bundles and resolver hooks should be supported without any configuration?
thanks
david jencks
>
> I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
> blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
> if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
> passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
> failures were due to bad tests).
>
> Thanks
> Alasdair
>
> P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
>
> On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
>> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
>>> to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
>>> starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>>>
>>> I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
>>> versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
>>> across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
>>> things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
>> if
>>> you think it all just looks terrible.
>>>
>>> Holly
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alasdair Nottingham
> not@apache.org
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org>.
Holly,
Have we addressed the utils defect that includes a list of things that are
required for a 1.0 release? Also the RecursiveBundleTracker behaves
differently if you run on an R4.3 framework to an R4.2 framework. It
doesn't work with our application isolation model (which it was designed to
do) and works differently if we had a resolver hook isolation
implementation (if we don't). I think that needs to be resolved. Having it
behave weirdly isn't good.
I also think we need to ensure we pass the OSGi CTs for things like
blueprint, JMX etc before we release a 1.0 level (people will be surprised
if we don't). I think blueprint still has a few issues, although JNDI
passed last time I ran the CT as did JMX (well there were failures, but the
failures were due to bad tests).
Thanks
Alasdair
P.S. Thanks for doing work here.
On 11 May 2012 10:55, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
> holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
> > to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
> > starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
> >
> > I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
> > versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
> > across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
> > things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or
> if
> > you think it all just looks terrible.
> >
> > Holly
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> http://fusesource.com
>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org
Re: Incoming code: The Big Move to 1.0.0
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
I wonder if it would make sense to move all packages to 1.0 version ?
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Holly Cummins <
holly.k.cummins@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just about to commit the big change which moves most Aries components
> to 1.0.0 bundle and package versions. You may need to do a full rebuild,
> starting with parent and eva-maven-plugin, to populate your maven repo.
>
> I've left some components I judged to be pre-1.0.0 at their current
> versions. I also think jmx will need revisiting once jmx-next is merged
> across. Even so, there were a lot of changes, so I undoubtedly got some
> things wrong! Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions or if
> you think it all just looks terrible.
>
> Holly
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
FuseSource, Integration everywhere
http://fusesource.com