I didn't see any mention what bindings are supported or have been tested
with this kernel release. In past we had several web services, RMI all
validating that the kernel and the SPIs. We also had several
implementation supported Java script, Ruby. It was my experience that
these really
On Feb 22, 2007, at 4:40 AM, Rick Rineholt wrote:
I didn't see any mention what bindings are supported or have been
tested with this kernel release. In past we had several web
services, RMI all validating that the kernel and the SPIs. We also
had several implementation supported Java
Jim Marino wrote:
On Feb 22, 2007, at 4:40 AM, Rick Rineholt wrote:
I didn't see any mention what bindings are supported or have been
tested with this kernel release. In past we had several web services,
RMI all validating that the kernel and the SPIs. We also had several
implementation
On Feb 22, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Rick Rineholt wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
On Feb 22, 2007, at 4:40 AM, Rick Rineholt wrote:
I didn't see any mention what bindings are supported or have been
tested with this kernel release. In past we had several web
services, RMI all validating that the
I was going with the scenario that the release was out. Given that
unlike past releases we've done where we had major number of bindings
running and samples running to give a level of confidence that there
was a fair amount that could be done with the release code that
wouldn't require
On Feb 22, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Rick Rineholt wrote:
I was going with the scenario that the release was out. Given that
unlike past releases we've done where we had major number of
bindings running and samples running to give a level of confidence
that there was a fair amount that could
But if we have not done sufficient testing of the release that we feel
confident that users won't have to immediately wait for a new release
or go to snapshot what has it accomplished ?
Jim Marino wrote:
On Feb 22, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Rick Rineholt wrote:
I was going with the scenario that
Jim Marino wrote:
I think it will be good to have a stable kernel. Which level of
SCDL and which features from the SCA assembly model are you
proposing to support in that kernel level?
As it says, SCA 1.0 level - not all of it for sure but a baseline
for itest, standalone and webapp
It's a simple question. There has been many changes in the SCA
assembly model between 0.96 and 1.0, you are proposing a 1.0-alpha
release of a Kernel supporting a subset of the 1.0 SCA assembly
model. I'm simply asking Which subset of 1.0? to help all of us
understand how to integrate
Any doc, even incomplete, will help us understand the supported
features. Are you developing that doc on our Wiki?
O.K. I've just checked in a first cut of the release doc for kernel
here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/kernel/
There will be other release
Raymond Feng wrote:
+1 on the spec release criteria.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Java Kernel Release
On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jim Marino wrote:
There has been quite a bit of activity over the last month-and-a-half
enhancing the Kernel. Based on this work, I'd like to cut a release
of Kernel, the Standalone Runtime, the Webap Runtime, and the Maven
iTest Plugin as a
Jim Marino wrote:
There has been quite a bit of activity over the last month-and-a-half
enhancing the Kernel. Based on this work, I'd like to cut a release of
Kernel, the Standalone Runtime, the Webap Runtime, and the Maven iTest
Plugin as a stepping stone to having a 1. release. I was
On Feb 20, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
There has been quite a bit of activity over the last month-and-a-
half enhancing the Kernel. Based on this work, I'd like to cut a
release of Kernel, the Standalone Runtime, the Webap Runtime, and
the Maven iTest
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Feb 20, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
There has been quite a bit of activity over the last
month-and-a-half enhancing the Kernel. Based on this work, I'd like
to cut a release of Kernel, the Standalone Runtime, the Webap
Runtime,
I think it will be good to have a stable kernel. Which level of
SCDL and which features from the SCA assembly model are you
proposing to support in that kernel level?
As it says, SCA 1.0 level - not all of it for sure but a baseline
for itest, standalone and webapp environments.
--
There has been quite a bit of activity over the last month-and-a-half
enhancing the Kernel. Based on this work, I'd like to cut a release
of Kernel, the Standalone Runtime, the Webap Runtime, and the Maven
iTest Plugin as a stepping stone to having a 1. release. I was
thinking we would
-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Java Kernel Release
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:45:38 -0800
There has been quite a bit of activity over the last month-and-a-half
enhancing the Kernel. Based on this work, I'd like to cut a release of
Kernel, the Standalone Runtime
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jim Marino wrote:
There has been quite a bit of activity over the last month-and-a-
half enhancing the Kernel. Based on this work, I'd like to cut a
release of Kernel, the Standalone Runtime, the Webap Runtime, and
the Maven iTest Plugin as a stepping stone to
Quick comment...
I'd suggest three release bundles (source):
* kernel
* runtime (which includes the three runtimes you mention above)
* core samples
with binary distributions of the standalone assembly plus maven
artifacts (including the war and itest plugins).
Don't you need to distribute
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Jim,
I think, it is a good idea to a have a set of iterative alpha
releases gearing towards a final 1.0 release.
These are the features I see in the 1.0 final release ..
1. Full support for heterogeneous federation
2. Distributed
I propose we remove the test module.
+1. If you are going to don the build-monkey-suit, do you want to go
ahead and remove it?
The extension model is a bit hokey at the moment requiring users to
create new or modify existing profiles which basically means
duplicating the installation
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
Quick comment...
I'd suggest three release bundles (source):
* kernel
* runtime (which includes the three runtimes you mention above)
* core samples
with binary distributions of the standalone assembly plus maven
artifacts (including the
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
Quick comment...
I'd suggest three release bundles (source):
* kernel
* runtime (which includes the three runtimes you mention above)
* core samples
with binary distributions of the standalone assembly plus maven
artifacts (including the war
, February 19, 2007 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Java Kernel Release
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
Quick comment...
I'd suggest three release bundles (source):
* kernel
* runtime (which includes the three runtimes you mention above)
* core samples
with binary distributions
On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
Quick comment...
I'd suggest three release bundles (source):
* kernel
* runtime (which includes the three runtimes you mention above)
* core samples
with binary distributions of the
+1 on the spec release criteria.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Java Kernel Release
On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3
[snip]
There are some JIRA issues created from the test cases in
testing\sca\itest\test-spec. We should try to fix them.
- Closer alignment with the assembly specification (multiple
bindings per service/reference, property overrides)
I'd like to help with the release as well. If
thank you all for the details :-)
I need more time to absorb them, but here some comments following up to
the thread about the Standalone server.
1. How the management mechanism is implemented
2. How the management interface is extracted from managed components
I would like to discuss about
Over the past couple of weeks we have made progress in upgrading the
capabilities of the kernel, including starting support for a
standalone server, JMX, and SCA deployment. In addition, we have made
changes that have allowed us to support existing SCA features such as
multiple bindings
Hi Jim,
as you know my vision about Tuscany architecture is still limited, but I
was wondering whether one of the JMX implementation at the Felix project
could help you. Take a look at
http://cwiki.apache.org/FELIX/mosgi-managed-osgi-framework.html
This solution is tied to adopt an OSGi
On Jan 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Francesco Furfari wrote:
Hi Jim,
as you know my vision about Tuscany architecture is still limited,
but I was wondering whether one of the JMX implementation at the
Felix project could help you. Take a look at http://
kernel release
On Jan 3, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Francesco Furfari wrote:
Hi Jim,
as you know my vision about Tuscany architecture is still limited, but
I was wondering whether one of the JMX implementation at the Felix
project could help you. Take a look at http://
cwiki.apache.org/FELIX/mosgi
I started work on a version of this with the definition of two
interfaces in host-api:
ContributionService is an API that handles the contribution of
artifacts to a SCA domain (for now, the domain corresponds to a
single runtime, in the future it will be multiple federated ones).
The
34 matches
Mail list logo
