Berin Loritsch wrote:
Woops - I meant the lifecycle extensions stuff. I've moved the lifecycle extension code into a minimal package over on avalon-sandbox but I havn't updated Fortress. The differences concern package name and some enhancements to the end-user documentation. However - before relasing the lifecycle extension package - I would like to kick of some discussion about the interfaces before be finalize things.From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Vote for Fortress 1.0 release for our user's happiness?-1 I think that a number of things have to happen prior to a release: (a) ensure depedencies are migrated to release status first (e.g. extensions package)I wasn't aware it was using the extensions package. Or was that changed from the container package?
Based on the build file there appear to be the following depedencies.(b) clear documentation of the release status of dependencies including proper specification of jar depedencies and the versions Fortress is linked toOk.
avalon-framework 4.1.3 RELEASED
logkit 1.1 RELEASED
commons-collections 1.0 RELEASED (imp version 2.0)
excalibur-instrument 0.3 UNRELEASED
excalibur-instrument-manager 0.3 UNRELEASED
excalibur-instrument-manager-interfaces 0.3 UNRELEASED
excalibur-event.jar 1.0.1 RELEASED
excalibur-logger 1.0 RELEASED manifest needs updating excalibur-sourceresolve 1.0 RELEASED manifest needs updating util-concurrent 1.3.1 no manifest information
excalibur-container 1.0 UNRELEASED
excalibur-thread-context 1.0 RELEASED manifest needs updating excalibur-thread 1.0 RELEASED manifest needs updating excalibur-altrmi-registry 0.7 UNRELEASED
excalibur-altrmi-common 0.7 UNRELEASED excalibur-altrmi-server-impl 0.7 UNRELEASED
excalibur-altrmi-server-interfaces 0.7 UNRELEASED
excalibur-altrmi-client-impl 0.7 UNRELEASED
excalibur-altrmi-client-interfaces 0.7 UNRELEASED
And I'm not sure about the following:
excalibur-pool 1.1 ? (manifest inconsitent)
excalibur-monitor 1.0 ?
excalibur-xmlutil 1.0 ?
Can you fill in any of the above information?
Also, is the AltRMI dependency hard or optional?
(c) upgrading of the general documentation to include example code and general usageOk.(d) test case documentationOk. I think I have been infecting you ;)
:-)
I'm really constrained on current tasks and still have the refactoring in Merlin to complete. I'll try to help where I can but don't count on a lot (too much internal stuff).(e) upgrade to existing javadoc to bring it up to "release" qualityOk.(f) linking of documetation to related excalibur packagesOk.(g) getting download version in placeOk.And finally, something in the documentation that reflects the results of some discussion about a roadmap related to Fortress. I.e. answering question like the relationship between the release and future containment strategies - probable lifespan - etc.
Since Fortress is the closest thing we have to a comunity developed container (other than ECM), how about splitting up the responsibilities? Who wants to take on the various tasks?
I would prefer to answer that after we discuss "a roadmap related to Fortress. I.e. answering question like the relationship between the release and future containment strategies - probable lifespan - etc.", and secondly, review the depedencies and relase plan for those dependencies.I still don't have my private key on my machine at work, so I can post patches from here, but I need someone else to commit them. I will remedy that ASAP (but not today). I can take on the JavaDoc tasks and the final distributable (which has to wait for the other documentation tasks). I need help getting the rest of the docs up to par. Think we can get this done by Christmas?
My own feeling is that Christmas may be optimistic.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
