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]
>
