I downloaded the RC2 and found that there are a bunch of OSGi MF related
changes in trunk are not pulled into 2.0-M3 branch. It prevented the
distributed OSGi samples from running with the Tuscany distribution.
I have merged the fixes into 2.0-M3 branch under r789466 to cover:
1) The README files for dosgi-calculator/dosgi-calculator-operations samples
are not in 2.0-M3 branch
2) Missing Import-Package such as org.w3c.dom.ls in tuscany-contribution MF
that leads to ClassNotFoundException when dosgi bundle is started
3) Axis2ServiceProvider.java imports
edu.emory.mathcs.backport.java.util.Collections and it results in
NoClassDefFoundError
4) Support OSGI-INF resource at the root of the project so that dosgi
samples can run with Eclipse IDE using Equinox profile
5) Some of IOException constructors are using the 1.6 APIs
With these changes, I got a good build and can successfully run the
distributed OSGi samples, including the Tomcat distribution as the web front
and two OSGi VMs to host the distributed bundles.
-1 to RC2. I would like to see a respin.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <antel...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:20 AM
To: <dev@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Tuscany SCA 2.0 M3 RC2
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Simon Laws<simonsl...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, ant elder<ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Simon Laws<simonsl...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
The webapp failure is not a blocker neither is the fact we include
more licenses than is absolutely necessary. However I think we need to
correct the missing license. so -1 on this basis.
I think jstl is CDDL and that is in the Tuscany LICENSE file so just
to be clear, what license are you saying is missing, or is it just the
mention about jstl in the CDDL section?
...ant
My first problem is that I struggled to find out precisely what the
license is. Of course the Jar doesn't have a license associated with
it. I ended up at https://jstl.dev.java.net/ which suggests either
CDDL or GPL (which may be why the jar doesn't have a license in it).
So assuming that this is where the jar comes from it would seem to be
the case that we can use CDDL. Is this how you arrive at CDDL?
Yes, i found it at https://jstl.dev.java.net/ too
If that's the case then yes we already have CDDL in our LICENSE file
we just don't say that we are choosing this as the license to cover
the jstl jar. Now you've pointed out we do actually have the license
I'm more inclined to vote positively.
Ok, the not compiling with JDK5 isn't great either so if we do respin
it would be good to get both fixed, but if there are 3 +1s by tomorrow
I'm tempted to try to go with this RC just to get the release done.
...ant
