+1. I would like to nominate Ant too.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
> How about Ant as release manager for this release? He has been very
> diligent in reviewing previous Tuscany releases with many helpful
> comments. He has a good understanding of the Apache requirements
> and process for publishing a release, and I think he is very well
> qualified to take this on.
>
> Simon
>
> Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After evaluating the features I would like to contribute to this
release
>> in the short timeframe, I don't think I would have enough time to
handle
>> the release as I'm new to this process. I would appreciate if
somebody
>> else with more experience volunteers to be the release manager. This
way,
>> I can learn more and get ready for the next time.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luciano Resende"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it
>>
>>
>>> +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.xmlwill
>>>> >> 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]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
