On 4/20/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on focusing on the stability and consumability for the core functions, other then helping on simplifying the runtime further and work on a Domain concept, I also want to contribute around having a better integration with App Servers, basically start by bringing back WAR plugin and TC integration. +1 on Raymond as Release Manager On 4/20/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Considering that we want to achieve this in about 3 weeks, I agree that we > focus on the stability and consumability for the core functions. > > Other additional features are welcome. We can decide if they will be part > of > the release based on the readiness. > > Are any of you going to volunteer to be the release manager? If not, I can > give a try. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:07 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it > > > > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> Let's keep the ball rolling...Can someone please come up with a master > >> list of "extensions, bindings, services, samples" which can then help > >> decide what's going to get into the next release. Please start a wiki > >> page to document the master list. Once we are done documenting the > >> list. We can figure out which ones are MUST, which ones are nice to > >> have, which ones are out of scope. Then we can work backwards to > >> figure out How tightly or loosely coupled each piece is/should be and > >> how we could decouple them if necessary using > >> interfaces/spi/whatever... > >> > >> Quote from Bert Lamb: > >> "I think there should be a voted upon core set of extensions, > >> bindings, services, samples, whatever that should be part of a > >> monolithic build." > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16062.html > >> > >> Quote from Ant Elder: > >> The specifics of what extensions are included in this release is left > out > >> of > >> this vote and can be decided in the release plan discussion. All this > >> vote > >> is saying is that all the modules that are to be included in this next > >> release will have the same version and that a top level pom.xml will > >> exist > >> to enable building all those modules at once. > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg16155.html > >> > >> Thanks, > >> dims > >> > >> > > > > Hi all, > > > > I think we have made good progress since we initially started this > > discussion. We have a simpler structure in trunk with a working top-down > > build. Samples and integration tests from the integration branch have > been > > integrated back in trunk and most are now working. > > > > We have a more modular runtime with a simpler extension mechanism. For > > example we have separate modules for the various models, the core > runtime > > and the Java component support. SPIs between the models and the rest of > > the runtime have been refactored and should become more stable. We need > to > > do more work to further simplify the core runtime SPIs and improve the > > core runtime but I think this is going in the right direction. > > > > I'm also happy to see better support for the SCA 1.0 spec, with support > > for most of the SCA 1.0 assembly XML, and some of the SCA 1.0 APIs. It > > looks like extensions are starting to work again in the trunk, including > > Web Services, Java and scripting components. It shouldn't be too > difficult > > to port some of the other extensions - Spring, JMS, JSON-RPC - to the > > latest code base as well. > > > > So, the JavaOne conference is in three weeks, would it make sense to try > > to have a Tuscany release by then? > > > > We could integrate in that release what we already have working in > trunk, > > mature and stabilize our SPIs and our extensibility story, and this > would > > be a good foundation for people to use, embed or extend. > > > > On top of that, I think it would be really cool to do some work to: > > - Make it easier to assemble a distributed SCA domain with components > > running on different runtimes / machines. > > - Improve our scripting and JSON-RPC support a little and show how to > > build Web 2.0 applications with Tuscany. > > - Improve our integration story with Tomcat and also start looking at an > > integration with Geronimo. > > - Improve our Spring-based core variant implementation, as I think it's > a > > good example to show how to integrate Tuscany with other IoC containers. > > - Maybe start looking at the equivalent using Google Guice. > > - Start looking again at some of the extensions that we have in contrib > or > > sandboxes (OSGI, ServiceMix, I think there's a Fractal extension in > > sandbox, more databindings etc). > > - ... > > > > I'm not sure we can do all of that in the next few weeks :) but I'd like > > to get your thoughts and see what people in the community would like to > > have in that next release... > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
+1 Raymond for release manager. Thanks Raymond for volunteering. Luciano, there is a post today asking for web app support so this would be very welcome. Simon
