Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Raymond Feng]

Hi,

The JAXB based POJO transformation has been checked. But I'm afraid the 
transation policy is not quite ready as we are flushing out the blockers 
around the policy framework.


Thanks,
Raymond

- Original Message - 
From: "Simon Laws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "tuscany-dev" ; "tuscany-user" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?



Hi

Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level areas 
that
I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to go 
for

release 1.1.

Deep tomcat integration
Better JMS support
JAXB based POJO transformations.
More policy function
Modeling of client side java script components
JSONRPC reference binding
Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
Domain based and standalone node operation
Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
Transactions
JPA
Class loading and OSGI
BPEL fixes
Distribution structure changes

Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in, i.e.add what is
missing from the list, add details to what is on the list, indicate what
shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES text so it
should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)

As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on 
spending

next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution, fixing
samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a release
candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review at their
leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the week
beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can vote 
on.

The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by voting with a
view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get done).

Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of function
that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?

Regards

Simon

[1]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[ant elder]

I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution structure
changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening with
jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this year
to continue development though right?

   ...ant

On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level areas
> that
> I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to go
> for
> release 1.1.
>
> Deep tomcat integration
> Better JMS support
> JAXB based POJO transformations.
> More policy function
> Modeling of client side java script components
> JSONRPC reference binding
> Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> Domain based and standalone node operation
> Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> Transactions
> JPA
> Class loading and OSGI
> BPEL fixes
> Distribution structure changes
>
> Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in, i.e.add what is
> missing from the list, add details to what is on the list, indicate what
> shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES text so it
> should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)
>
> As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on
> spending
> next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution, fixing
> samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a release
> candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review at their
> leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the week
> beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can vote
> on.
> The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by voting with a
> view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get done).
>
> Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of function
> that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> [1]
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
>

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Luciano Resende]

Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th, I'd
recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.

On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution structure
> changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening with
> jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this year
> to continue development though right?
>
>...ant
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level areas
> > that
> > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to go
> > for
> > release 1.1.
> >
> > Deep tomcat integration
> > Better JMS support
> > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > More policy function
> > Modeling of client side java script components
> > JSONRPC reference binding
> > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > Transactions
> > JPA
> > Class loading and OSGI
> > BPEL fixes
> > Distribution structure changes
> >
> > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in, i.e.add what is
> > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list, indicate what
> > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES text so it
> > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)
> >
> > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on
> > spending
> > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution, fixing
> > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a release
> > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review at their
> > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the week
> > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can vote
> > on.
> > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by voting with a
> > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get done).
> >
> > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of function
> > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> >
>



-- 
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Laws]

On Dec 12, 2007 8:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution structure
> changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening with
> jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this
> year
> to continue development though right?
>
>   ...ant
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level areas
> > that
> > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to go
> > for
> > release 1.1.
> >
> > Deep tomcat integration
> > Better JMS support
> > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > More policy function
> > Modeling of client side java script components
> > JSONRPC reference binding
> > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > Transactions
> > JPA
> > Class loading and OSGI
> > BPEL fixes
> > Distribution structure changes
> >
> > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in, i.e.add what
> is
> > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list, indicate what
> > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES text so
> it
> > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)
> >
> > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on
> > spending
> > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution, fixing
> > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a release
> > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review at
> their
> > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the week
> > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can vote
> > on.
> > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by voting with
> a
> > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get done).
> >
> > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of
> function
> > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> >
>
Well I want to make a first release candidate before I go away for Christmas
so I want to get all of the things that affect the shape of the distribution
decided before the end of next week. I.e I want to know what's in it and I
want to know what it's going to look like in terms of the jars that are
built and the dependencies that we have.

 If you choose to spend the Christmas holiday improving what is committed to
the release then that's great. We can then go through the process of voting
on and no doubt polishing further release candidates when we get back in the
new year. Does the timeline in the new year look good?

So, of the things you mention,  I think JMS is the most important given the
number of mails we have had about it.  Do you think there will be some JMS
content to include on this basis?

Regards

Simon

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Laws]

On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
> considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th, I'd
> recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
>
> On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> structure
> > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening with
> > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this
> year
> > to continue development though right?
> >
> >...ant
> >
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level
> areas
> > > that
> > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to
> go
> > > for
> > > release 1.1.
> > >
> > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > Better JMS support
> > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > More policy function
> > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > Transactions
> > > JPA
> > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > BPEL fixes
> > > Distribution structure changes
> > >
> > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in, i.e.addwhat is
> > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list, indicate
> what
> > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES text so
> it
> > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)
> > >
> > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on
> > > spending
> > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution, fixing
> > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a release
> > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review at
> their
> > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the week
> > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can
> vote
> > > on.
> > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by voting
> with a
> > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get done).
> > >
> > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of
> function
> > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende 
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If people are agreed that any work that gets committed to trunk over the
Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content of the release
candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm happy to keep that effort
going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch including all of the fixes
people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We could hope to use this
"RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce the pain a little for
this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen in just one place.

If people have other projects in mind that take the trunk in a different
direction then I'll take a branch next week.

Simon

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Nash]

I would like to use the holiday period to work on fixing up the
contents of the release.  I don't intend to work on anything that
would not be part of the release.  It would be easier for me to
do this work in trunk.

  Simon

Simon Laws wrote:


On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th, I'd
recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.

On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution


structure


changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening with
jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this


year


to continue development though right?

  ...ant


On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Hi

Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level


areas


that
I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to


go


for
release 1.1.

Deep tomcat integration
Better JMS support
JAXB based POJO transformations.
More policy function
Modeling of client side java script components
JSONRPC reference binding
Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
Domain based and standalone node operation
Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
Transactions
JPA
Class loading and OSGI
BPEL fixes
Distribution structure changes

Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in, i.e.addwhat is
missing from the list, add details to what is on the list, indicate


what


shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES text so


it


should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)

As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on
spending
next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution, fixing
samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a release
candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review at


their


leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the week
beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can


vote


on.
The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by voting


with a


view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get done).

Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of


function


that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?

Regards

Simon

[1]




http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES



--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende 
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

If people are agreed that any work that gets committed to trunk over the


Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content of the release
candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm happy to keep that effort
going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch including all of the fixes
people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We could hope to use this
"RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce the pain a little for
this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen in just one place.

If people have other projects in mind that take the trunk in a different
direction then I'll take a branch next week.

Simon





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[ant elder]

On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
> > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th, I'd
> > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> > structure
> > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening
> with
> > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of this
> > year
> > > to continue development though right?
> > >
> > >...ant
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level
> > areas
> > > > that
> > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready to
> > go
> > > > for
> > > > release 1.1.
> > > >
> > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > Better JMS support
> > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > More policy function
> > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > Transactions
> > > > JPA
> > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > >
> > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> i.e.addwhat is
> > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list, indicate
> > what
> > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES text
> so
> > it
> > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)
> > > >
> > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on
> > > > spending
> > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution, fixing
> > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a
> release
> > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review at
> > their
> > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the week
> > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can
> > vote
> > > > on.
> > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by voting
> > with a
> > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get
> done).
> > > >
> > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of
> > function
> > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > If people are agreed that any work that gets committed to trunk over the
> Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content of the release
> candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm happy to keep that
> effort
> going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch including all of the
> fixes
> people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We could hope to use this
> "RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce the pain a little for
> this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen in just one place.
>
> If people have other projects in mind that take the trunk in a different
> direction then I'll take a branch next week.
>
> Simon
>

Doing it next year sounds good to me, i've no plans to start on new stuff
not related to 1.1 over the break but i would find it useful to have that
time to finish things off.

   ...ant

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Laws]

On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
> > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th, I'd
> > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > >
> > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> > > structure
> > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much happening
> > with
> > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of
> this
> > > year
> > > > to continue development though right?
> > > >
> > > >...ant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high level
> > > areas
> > > > > that
> > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be ready
> to
> > > go
> > > > > for
> > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > More policy function
> > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > Transactions
> > > > > JPA
> > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> indicate
> > > what
> > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES
> text
> > so
> > > it
> > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES doc:-)
> > > > >
> > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning on
> > > > > spending
> > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution,
> fixing
> > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a
> > release
> > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review
> at
> > > their
> > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the
> week
> > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we can
> > > vote
> > > > > on.
> > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by
> voting
> > > with a
> > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get
> > done).
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces of
> > > function
> > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luciano Resende
> > > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> <
> > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > If people are agreed that any work that gets committed to trunk over
> the
> > Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content of the release
> > candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm happy to keep that
> > effort
> > going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch including all of the
> > fixes
> > people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We could hope to use
> this
> > "RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce the pain a little
> for
> > this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen in just one place.
> >
> > If people have other projects in mind that take the trunk in a different
> > direction then I'll take a branch next week.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Doing it next year sounds good to me, i've no plans to start on new stuff
> not related to 1.1 over the break but i would find it useful to have that
> time to finish things off.
>
>   ...ant
>
I do want to get an RC done next week (from the trunk) which we can all test
with and which I hope shows what we intend to release in 1.1. From past
experience we know that the first time we try to get it all together there
will be many things to fix and things to finish. I wouldn't expect that to
include, for example, inclusion of n

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Laws]

On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe and
> > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th,
> > I'd
> > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> > > > structure
> > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > happening
> > > with
> > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest of
> > this
> > > > year
> > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > >
> > > > >...ant
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high
> > level
> > > > areas
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be
> > ready to
> > > > go
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> > indicate
> > > > what
> > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES
> > text
> > > so
> > > > it
> > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES
> > doc:-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm planning
> > on
> > > > > > spending
> > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution,
> > fixing
> > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a
> > > release
> > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to review
> > at
> > > > their
> > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend the
> > week
> > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we
> > can
> > > > vote
> > > > > > on.
> > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by
> > voting
> > > > with a
> > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we get
> > > done).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces
> > of
> > > > function
> > > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> > <
> > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > If people are agreed that any work that gets committed to trunk over
> > the
> > > Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content of the release
> > > candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm happy to keep that
> > > effort
> > > going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch including all of the
> > > fixes
> > > people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We could hope to use
> > this
> > > "RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce the pain a little
> > for
> > > this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen in just one place.
> > >
> > > If people have other projects in mind that take the trunk in a
> > different
> > > direction then I'll take a branch next week.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> > Doing it next year sounds good to me, i've no plans to start on new
> > stuff
> > not related to 1.1 over the break but i would find it useful to have

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[ant elder]

On Dec 18, 2007 3:46 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe
> and
> > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th,
> > > I'd
> > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > > happening
> > > > with
> > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest
> of
> > > this
> > > > > year
> > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >...ant
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high
> > > level
> > > > > areas
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be
> > > ready to
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> > > indicate
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES
> > > text
> > > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES
> > > doc:-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm
> planning
> > > on
> > > > > > > spending
> > > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution,
> > > fixing
> > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a
> > > > release
> > > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to
> review
> > > at
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend
> the
> > > week
> > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we
> > > can
> > > > > vote
> > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by
> > > voting
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we
> get
> > > > done).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces
> > > of
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> 
> > > <
> > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > If people are agreed that any work that gets committed to trunk
> over
> > > the
> > > > Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content of the
> release
> > > > candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm happy to keep that
> > > > effort
> > > > going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch including all of
> the
> > > > fixes
> > > > people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We could hope to
> use
> > > this
> > > > "RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce the pai

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Luciano Resende]

> > JSONRPC references
> >   Is this done now?

The work on JSONRPC references was related to the Widget
implementation, and the ability to specify references on a Web 2.0
client application. This is ready and demonstrated in the store
scenario.

On Dec 18, 2007 8:09 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 3:46 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe
> > and
> > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th,
> > > > I'd
> > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > > > happening
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > year
> > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high
> > > > level
> > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be
> > > > ready to
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> > > > indicate
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES
> > > > text
> > > > > so
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES
> > > > doc:-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm
> > planning
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > spending
> > > > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution,
> > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to
> > review
> > > > at
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend
> > the
> > > > week
> > > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we
> > > > can
> > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by
> > > > voting
> > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we
> > get
> > > > > done).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces
> > > > of
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> > 
> > > > <
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > -
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Rajini Sivaram]

Simon,

There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading changes to
the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany to be
run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By default,
Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based classloader.

Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result, contributions no
longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export dependencies across
contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in the spec).
Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the thread context
classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export statements did
not have any effect.


Thank you...

Regards,

Rajini


On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC, development
> > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe
> and
> > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan 7th,
> > > I'd
> > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or distribution
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > > happening
> > > > with
> > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest
> of
> > > this
> > > > > year
> > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >...ant
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high
> > > level
> > > > > areas
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be
> > > ready to
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> > > indicate
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the CHANGES
> > > text
> > > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES
> > > doc:-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm
> planning
> > > on
> > > > > > > spending
> > > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the distribution,
> > > fixing
> > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have a
> > > > release
> > > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to
> review
> > > at
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend
> the
> > > week
> > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC we
> > > can
> > > > > vote
> > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by
> > > voting
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we
> get
> > > > done).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there pieces
> > > of
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > <
> > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > 

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Laws]

On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Simon,
>
> There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading changes
> to
> the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany to be
> run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By default,
> Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based classloader.
>
> Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result, contributions no
> longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export dependencies across
> contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in the spec).
> Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the thread context
> classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export statements did
> not have any effect.
>
>
> Thank you...
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
>
> On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC,
> development
> > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the timeframe
> > and
> > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan
> 7th,
> > > > I'd
> > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or
> distribution
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > > > happening
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the rest
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > year
> > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few high
> > > > level
> > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may be
> > > > ready to
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> > > > indicate
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the
> CHANGES
> > > > text
> > > > > so
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the CHANGES
> > > > doc:-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm
> > planning
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > spending
> > > > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the
> distribution,
> > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to have
> a
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to
> > review
> > > > at
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can spend
> > the
> > > > week
> > > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an RC
> we
> > > > can
> > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up by
> > > > voting
> > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if we
> > get
> > > > > done).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. Are there
> pieces
> > > > of
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this timescale?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > 

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Rajini Sivaram]

Simon,

No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.

Thank you...

Regards,

Rajini

On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Simon,
> >
> > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading
> changes
> > to
> > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany to
> be
> > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By
> default,
> > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based classloader.
> >
> > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result, contributions
> no
> > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export dependencies
> across
> > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in the spec).
> > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the thread context
> > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export statements
> did
> > not have any effect.
> >
> >
> > Thank you...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rajini
> >
> >
> > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC,
> > development
> > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the
> timeframe
> > > and
> > > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan
> > 7th,
> > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of year.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or
> > distribution
> > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > > > > happening
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the
> rest
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few
> high
> > > > > level
> > > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may
> be
> > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get in,
> > > > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the list,
> > > > > indicate
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the
> > CHANGES
> > > > > text
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the
> CHANGES
> > > > > doc:-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm
> > > planning
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > spending
> > > > > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the
> > distribution,
> > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to
> have
> > a
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people to
> > > review
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can
> spend
> > > the
> > > > > week
> > > > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until we get an
> RC
> > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be taken up
> by
> > > > > voting
> > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or earlier if
> we
> > > get
> > > > > > done).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does that still sound

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Laws]

On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Simon,
>
> No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.
>
> Thank you...
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
> On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Simon,
> > >
> > > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading
> > changes
> > > to
> > > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany
> to
> > be
> > > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By
> > default,
> > > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based classloader.
> > >
> > > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result,
> contributions
> > no
> > > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export dependencies
> > across
> > > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in the
> spec).
> > > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the thread
> context
> > > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export statements
> > did
> > > not have any effect.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC,
> > > development
> > > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the
> > timeframe
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of Jan
> > > 7th,
> > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of
> year.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or
> > > distribution
> > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen much
> > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of the
> > rest
> > > > of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few
> > high
> > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so may
> > be
> > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec
> > > > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get
> in,
> > > > > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the
> list,
> > > > > > indicate
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the
> > > CHANGES
> > > > > > text
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the
> > CHANGES
> > > > > > doc:-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm
> > > > planning
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > spending
> > > > > > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the
> > > distribution,
> > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective being to
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for people
> to
> > > > review
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back we can
> > spend
> > > > the
> > > > > > week
> > > > > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[haleh mahbod]

Hi Simon,
Thank you for trying to get a release candidate ready during the holidays.
Why is implementation.bpel excluded?

Haleh

On 12/21/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Simon,
> >
> > No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.
> >
> > Thank you...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rajini
> >
> > On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Simon,
> > > >
> > > > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading
> > > changes
> > > > to
> > > > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany
> > to
> > > be
> > > > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By
> > > default,
> > > > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based classloader.
> > > >
> > > > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result,
> > contributions
> > > no
> > > > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export dependencies
> > > across
> > > > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in the
> > spec).
> > > > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the thread
> > context
> > > > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export
> statements
> > > did
> > > > not have any effect.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you...
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rajini
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC,
> > > > development
> > > > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the
> > > timeframe
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of
> Jan
> > > > 7th,
> > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of
> > year.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or
> > > > distribution
> > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen
> much
> > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of
> the
> > > rest
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few
> > > high
> > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so
> may
> > > be
> > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly
> spec
> > > > > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get
> > in,
> > > > > > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on the
> > list,
> > > > > > > indicate
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as forming the
> > > > CHANGES
> > > > > > > text
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update the
> > > CHANGES
> > > > > > > doc:-)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working to. I'm
> > > > > planning
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > spending
> > > 

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Luciano Resende]

Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded,
implementation-data-api should not either as it's being used in the
store tutorial scenario. Let me check if I can fix this on the
distribution files...

On Dec 27, 2007 7:51 PM, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> Thank you for trying to get a release candidate ready during the holidays.
> Why is implementation.bpel excluded?
>
> Haleh
>
>
> On 12/21/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Simon,
> > >
> > > No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.
> > >
> > > Thank you...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > > On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading
> > > > changes
> > > > > to
> > > > > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By
> > > > default,
> > > > > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based classloader.
> > > > >
> > > > > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result,
> > > contributions
> > > > no
> > > > > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export dependencies
> > > > across
> > > > > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in the
> > > spec).
> > > > > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the thread
> > > context
> > > > > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export
> > statements
> > > > did
> > > > > not have any effect.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you...
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajini
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC,
> > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the
> > > > timeframe
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of
> > Jan
> > > > > 7th,
> > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of
> > > year.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or
> > > > > distribution
> > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen
> > much
> > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of
> > the
> > > > rest
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few
> > > > high
> > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so
> > may
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly
> > spec
> > > > > > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation
> > > > > > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain services.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > > Distribution structure changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we can get
> > > in,
> > > > > > > > > i.

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Luciano Resende]

Implementation-bpel was OK. I have added implementation-widget and
implementation-data-api.

On Dec 28, 2007 4:59 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded,
> implementation-data-api should not either as it's being used in the
> store tutorial scenario. Let me check if I can fix this on the
> distribution files...
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2007 7:51 PM, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> > Thank you for trying to get a release candidate ready during the holidays.
> > Why is implementation.bpel excluded?
> >
> > Haleh
> >
> >
> > On 12/21/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Simon,
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you...
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rajini
> > > >
> > > > On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Simon,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the classloading
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables Tuscany
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. By
> > > > > default,
> > > > > > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based classloader.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result,
> > > > contributions
> > > > > no
> > > > > > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export dependencies
> > > > > across
> > > > > > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in the
> > > > spec).
> > > > > > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the thread
> > > > context
> > > > > > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export
> > > statements
> > > > > did
> > > > > > not have any effect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first RC,
> > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on the
> > > > > timeframe
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the week of
> > > Jan
> > > > > > 7th,
> > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around end of
> > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or
> > > > > > distribution
> > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't seen
> > > much
> > > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all of
> > > the
> > > > > rest
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are a few
> > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks and so
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by assembly
> > > spec
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do

Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?

[Simon Laws]

On Dec 28, 2007 4:00 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Implementation-bpel was OK. I have added implementation-widget and
> implementation-data-api.
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 4:59 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded,
> > implementation-data-api should not either as it's being used in the
> > store tutorial scenario. Let me check if I can fix this on the
> > distribution files...
> >
> >
> > On Dec 27, 2007 7:51 PM, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Simon,
> > > Thank you for trying to get a release candidate ready during the
> holidays.
> > > Why is implementation.bpel excluded?
> > >
> > > Haleh
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/21/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you...
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajini
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simon,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the
> classloading
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables
> Tuscany
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi.
> By
> > > > > > default,
> > > > > > > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based
> classloader.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result,
> > > > > contributions
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export
> dependencies
> > > > > > across
> > > > > > > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in
> the
> > > > > spec).
> > > > > > > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the
> thread
> > > > > context
> > > > > > > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export
> > > > statements
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > not have any effect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende <
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first
> RC,
> > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on
> the
> > > > > > timeframe
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the
> week of
> > > > Jan
> > > > > > > 7th,
> > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around
> end of
> > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or
> > > > > > > distribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't
> seen
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all
> of
> > > > the
> > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to continue development though right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >...ant
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are
> a few
> > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks
> and so
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integr