Comments inline below.
Simon
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
I wasn't asking for an "official" policy statement on this, and
I wasn't suggesting that we stop all innovation and move into a
phase where we only work on things that were part of M1.
By releasing M1, we moved from a phase of focusing purely on
the developer community into a phase of starting to attract
potential users as well. I think we need to strike a balance
between the needs of developers and users. We met some
potential users at ApacheCon, and I expect that we will meet
more at OSCON. For now we can point them to M1, but given
our desire to focus around a single codebase that is actively
being enhanced, I would expect that we would want to be able to
start to point these people to the new codebase in the fairly
near future.
And we should. In fact, I would point them at the "new" code now, not
just in the future. That is the codebase chosen by the community. That
is our code.
Seems like we are in agreement about this. The short-term
difficulty we have right now is that some things that used to
work in the M1 code don't currently work in chianti. This would
be an issue for users who want to build applications using Tuscany.
If you believe the decision to adopt chianti as our code to be in
error, you are free to ask the community to reconsider, although I
believe the vote last week accurately expressed the community will (as
willful an act as it may have been ;-) ).
I voted in favour of this adoption and I would much prefer us to
continue to move forward and not move backwards.
Of course, people can also resort to M1 if they prefer to experiment
with the .9 version of the SCA specification or features specific to
that milestone.
This is not what I had in mind. Right now they would need to revert
to M1 if they wanted to work with Web service bindings or Tomcat
integration. I think it is undesirable that these features are
currently coupled to the use of the 0.9 spec version.
Even from a developer community standpoint, I think there is
considerable value in maintaining a working base level of
functionality that can support end-to-end scenarios. This
allows developers creating new code to exercise that code in
the context of real-world usage, in addition to unit tests.
I would imagine there is unanimous agreement on this point as we are
working hard to add "real-world" functionality that interests members
of the community.
Excellent.
Based on your statements, it sounds as if there is functionality you
would like to see added. The somewhat, although not completely,
flippant response to this is: Thanks for volunteering!
If you would like to see a particular set of functionality in Tuscany
you can either request it (preferably in JIRA) or develop it and submit
a patch. Depending on the importance of the feature to the community, I
suspect the latter approach has a higher probability of success in the
short-term. It is also the option I would personally prefer as it
expands the active, contributing segment of the community.
Sounds good. I'll probably start with JIRAs and then get deeper into
the codebase so that I can start developing and submitting patches.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
