Re: karaf, spring, blueprint (Was [Roadmap] 2.x and 3.x ...?)

2009-05-21 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > David Jencks ha scritto: >> On May 20, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Stefano Bagnar

Re: [Roadmap] 2.x and 3.x ...?

2009-05-21 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > The only real features for end users in that roadmap is jSPF and this > could be released as a mailet anyway. jSPF as it is in trunk cannot be > done in v2.3 because of different fastfail s

JAMES Server Nightly Build Report

2009-05-21 Thread JAMES Nightly Build System
An automated nightly build of JAMES has been posted to http://people.apache.org/builds/james/nightly/ Any unit test errors from the build should be reported below: -

[POLL] trunk -=phoenix +=spring/OSGi

2009-05-21 Thread Stefano Bagnara
Robert think there is no consensus on moving away from phoenix towards another specific container. As I don't remember who is against such a move in trunk I'm starting this thread. Is anyone against the removal of phoenix from trunk towards the use of a spring+OSGi solution (like Felix Karaf, fo

Factoring out libraries to be reused in 2.x and 3.x (Was: karaf, spring, blueprint)

2009-05-21 Thread Stefano Bagnara
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > everyone knows that i favour factoring out libraries which can be > reused between 2.x and 3.x but there just isn't consensus support for > this. Well. Just try it. I just told you that IMO this is a PITA. If you don't trust me then just go ahead. I won't veto y

Re: [POLL] trunk -=phoenix +=spring/OSGi

2009-05-21 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On 5/21/09, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Robert think there is no consensus on moving away from phoenix towards > another specific container. > > As I don't remember who is against such a move in trunk I'm starting > this thread. > > Is anyone against the removal of phoenix from trunk towards the use

Re: [POLL] trunk -=phoenix +=spring/OSGi

2009-05-21 Thread Stefano Bagnara
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On 5/21/09, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> Robert think there is no consensus on moving away from phoenix towards >> another specific container. >> >> As I don't remember who is against such a move in trunk I'm starting >> this thread. >> >> Is anyone against the rem

Re: [POLL] trunk -=phoenix +=spring/OSGi

2009-05-21 Thread David Jencks
On May 21, 2009, at 1:10 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: Robert think there is no consensus on moving away from phoenix towards another specific container. As I don't remember who is against such a move in trunk I'm starting this thread. Is anyone against the removal of phoenix from trunk towards

Re: [POLL] trunk -=phoenix +=spring/OSGi

2009-05-21 Thread Norman Maurer
I'm not really active at the moment, but I think without moving to some "newer" container we will not be able to attract any new committer soon :-/ Just my 2 cents.. So I'm +1 to move to something new.. Bye, Norman 2009/5/21 David Jencks : > > On May 21, 2009, at 1:10 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote

Re: [POLL] trunk -=phoenix +=spring/OSGi

2009-05-21 Thread Guillermo Grandes
Hello Again (after 3 years), I like +1 OSGi/Felix idea :-) - Original Message - From: "Stefano Bagnara" To: Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:10 AM Subject: [POLL] trunk -=phoenix +=spring/OSGi Robert think there is no consensus on moving away from phoenix towards another specific co

Re: [Roadmap] 2.x and 3.x ...?

2009-05-21 Thread Eric MacAdie
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: unless you change your mind or figure out some other way forward, then james server will die i was hopeful that a 3.x would be possible but we're too short of testers and documentors a gradualist approach would mean that 2.x users could contribute to testing and doc