What do you think if we improve the documentation with couple of popular deployment scenarios with Synapse as part of this release process. That will attract more users. I can think of the following;
1. Pub / Sub - AMQP transport. 2. JMS fail over - JMS transport. 2. File gateway - VFS transport. 3. PassThru - VFS, pass thru transports. etc.. etc.. Rajika On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Hiranya Jayathilaka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rajika, > > I'll go through the open issues over the weekend, and come up with a plan. > I think the current trunk is pretty stable so it shouldn't require a lot of > fixing. We do need to setup svnpubsub for distributing binaries and the > website though. Looks like this requires a bit of work. > > Thanks, > Hiranya > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Rajika Kumarasiri < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I think we should go ahead with this. Rather than make the Synapse trunk >> dependent on the forked version, let's only make it for the tag of the >> Synapse release. Let the Synapse trunk depend on the trunk of Axis2 and >> Rampart as it is now if there are no major API changes. >> >> Commons-VFS is here >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/synapse/branches/commons-vfs-2-synapse-2.0/. >> If I remember correctly we manually deployed the commons vfs artifacts into >> the maven repo when we first forked Commons-VFS. >> >> BTW, do you have a time line and set of issues that you are planning for >> this release ? >> >> Rajika >> >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Hiranya Jayathilaka <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> If we do a fork, this is what I think we should do: >>> >>> 1. Copy Axis2 and Rampart trunk heads into two branches under the >>> Synapse source tree. >>> 2. Change their versions by adding a suitable suffix (like how we do >>> with Commons-VFS). >>> 3. Change Synapse build to depend on these artifacts >>> 4. Continue with the Synapse release process. Hopefully we won't have to >>> make too many changes to Axis2 or Rampart. But for every change we do we >>> need to create an issue as Rajika mentioned, and submit patches. >>> >>> Is this an acceptable plan? Have to say I really don't like the idea of >>> forking Axis2, but we don't have too many options here unfortunately. >>> >>> Also, any idea how we can get the forked Axis2/Rampart binaries into the >>> maven repos? How do we do this for Commons-VFS? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Hiranya >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1. We need to create jira issue per each issue for Axis2 and Rampart >>>> once those issue got fixed we can move back to the mainline. >>>> >>>> Rajika >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Hiranya Jayathilaka < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>> >>>>> It looks like the Axis2 release process is going to take longer than >>>>> we'd like. Are there any alternatives that we can look into in the >>>>> meantime? Is temporarily forking Axis2 and Rampart a good idea? I believe >>>>> both projects are stable enough for our needs. WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Hiranya >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Hiranya Jayathilaka >>>>> Mayhem Lab/RACE Lab; >>>>> Dept. of Computer Science, UCSB; http://cs.ucsb.edu >>>>> E-mail: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mobile: +1 (805) >>>>> 895-7443 >>>>> Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Hiranya Jayathilaka >>> Mayhem Lab/RACE Lab; >>> Dept. of Computer Science, UCSB; http://cs.ucsb.edu >>> E-mail: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mobile: +1 (805) >>> 895-7443 >>> Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Hiranya Jayathilaka > Mayhem Lab/RACE Lab; > Dept. of Computer Science, UCSB; http://cs.ucsb.edu > E-mail: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mobile: +1 (805) 895-7443 > Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com >
