---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Dec 29, 2007 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week? To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
On Dec 28, 2007 4:00 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Implementation-bpel was OK. I have added implementation-widget and > implementation-data-api. > > On Dec 28, 2007 4:59 AM, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded, > > implementation-data-api should not either as it's being used in the > > store tutorial scenario. Let me check if I can fix this on the > > distribution files... > > > > > > On Dec 27, 2007 7:51 PM, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > > > Thank you for trying to get a release candidate ready during the > holidays. > > > Why is implementation.bpel excluded? > > > > > > Haleh > > > > > > > > > On 12/21/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Simon, > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you... > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the > classloading > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables > Tuscany > > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside OSGi. > By > > > > > > default, > > > > > > > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based > classloader. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result, > > > > > contributions > > > > > > no > > > > > > > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export > dependencies > > > > > > across > > > > > > > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described in > the > > > > > spec). > > > > > > > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the > thread > > > > > context > > > > > > > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export > > > > statements > > > > > > did > > > > > > > not have any effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende < > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after you cut the first > RC, > > > > > > > development > > > > > > > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on a branch ? Based on > the > > > > > > timeframe > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > considering we would still work on issues on the > week of > > > > Jan > > > > > > > 7th, > > > > > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until sometime around > end of > > > > > year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant elder < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat deep integration, JMS, or > > > > > > > distribution > > > > > > > > > > > > structure > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes would all be done by next week. Haven't > seen > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > happening > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently either. We do have all > of > > > > the > > > > > > rest > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > year > > > > > > > > > > > > > to continue development though right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM, Simon Laws < > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Following on from the JIRA tidy up note here are > a few > > > > > > high > > > > > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > > > > > areas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on over the last few weeks > and so > > > > may > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > ready to > > > > > > > > > > > > go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release 1.1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better JMS support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More policy function > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Modeling of client side java script components > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better support for doman API suggested by > assembly > > > > spec > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone node operation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote access to domain > services. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Transactions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JPA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPEL fixes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Distribution structure changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you fill in the detail and tell me what we > can get > > > > > in, > > > > > > > > > > > i.e.addwhat is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing from the list, add details to what is on > the > > > > > list, > > > > > > > > > > indicate > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't be on the list. Think of this as > forming the > > > > > > > CHANGES > > > > > > > > > > text > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should look like [1]. Even better go and update > the > > > > > > CHANGES > > > > > > > > > > doc:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reminder here is the timeline I'm working > to. I'm > > > > > > > > planning > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next week working on the first RC. Building the > > > > > > > distribution, > > > > > > > > > > fixing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses etc. The objective > being to > > > > > > have > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > candidate before I go away for the holidays for > people > > > > > to > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leisure. This means that when everyone is back > we can > > > > > > spend > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > week > > > > > > > > > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking it into shape until > we get > > > > an > > > > > > RC > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following week, beginning 14th would also be > taken > > > > > up > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > voting > > > > > > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > view to releasing the week beginning 21st (or > earlier > > > > if > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > done). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that still sound reasonable to everyone. > Are > > > > there > > > > > > > pieces > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > function > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that must be in 1.1. that can't be done in this > > > > > timescale? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > < > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > > > > > < > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > > > > > > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>< > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If people are agreed that any work that gets > committed to > > > > > > trunk > > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > Christmas holidays is related to fixing up the content > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > candidate contents we finalize next week then I'm > happy to > > > > > keep > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > effort > > > > > > > > > > > going on trunk with a view to cutting the branch > including > > > > all > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > fixes > > > > > > > > > > > people have made when I get back on the 2nd Jan. We > could > > > > hope > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > "RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues and reduce > the pain > > > > a > > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen in just one > place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If people have other projects in mind that take the > trunk in > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > direction then I'll take a branch next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doing it next year sounds good to me, i've no plans to > start > > > > on > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > stuff > > > > > > > > > > not related to 1.1 over the break but i would find it > useful > > > > to > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > time to finish things off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do want to get an RC done next week (from the trunk) > which we > > > > > can > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > test with and which I hope shows what we intend to release > in > > > > 1.1. > > > > > > > From > > > > > > > > > past experience we know that the first time we try to get > it all > > > > > > > > together > > > > > > > > > there will be many things to fix and things to finish. I > > > > wouldn't > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > > that to include, for example, inclusion of new modules > that we > > > > > > haven't > > > > > > > > > discussed here or material changes to the structure of the > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > point of this being that we shouldn't be in 1.1. > development > > > > mode > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > January comes round and that we are focused on getting > 1.1through > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > release votes with all the fixing and fiddling we know > that > > > > > entails. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm planning to spend the next 3 days working on getting the > > > > > > mechanics > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the release in place for 1.1 and working on bug fixes. From > the > > > > > > initial > > > > > > > > list > > > > > > > > that I postulated at the start of this and peoples > subsequent > > > > > replies > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > believe we can expect these pieces of work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Better JMS support > > > > > > > > - What level of support are we now expecting? > > > > > > > > - JAXB based POJO transformations. > > > > > > > > - More policy function including JAAS and better designed > policy > > > > > > > > handlers > > > > > > > > - Modeling of client side java script components > > > > > > > > - JSONRPC reference binding > > > > > > > > - Can someone comment is this is actually done? > > > > > > > > - Better support for doman API suggested by assembly spec > > > > > including > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > standalone node and nodes running connected together in a > > > > domain. > > > > > > > > - Class loading and OSGI improvements > > > > > > > > - Support for BPEL references > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check the accuracy of this and let me know what is > missing. > > > > > In > > > > > > > > particular I want more detail on what we can expect for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JMS - for example > > > > > > > > Point to point, XML messages, Callbacks? > > > > > > > > JSONRPC references > > > > > > > > Is this done now? > > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI improvements > > > > > > > > What new features/behaviour will people see in the > release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, thank you everyone for the updates. I'm starting to get a > feel for > > > > > > where > > > > > > we are at and what to look out for. Please go and update the > CHANGES > > > > > file > > > > > > in > > > > > > trunk when you get a change. Rajini do you have your ID yet? If > not > > > > I'll > > > > > > go > > > > > > do the update. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So based on these comments this is what is being added/excluded for > 1.1 > > > > > > > > Modules: > > > > ======= > > > > > > > > Included (Over what was included in the last release) > > > > ------------- > > > > binding-jms > > > > implementation-widget > > > > > > > > Excluded > > > > -------------- > > > > assembly-java-dsl > > > > databinding-fastinfoset > > > > implementation-bpel > > > > implementation-das > > > > implementation-data-api > > > > implementation-data-xml > > > > implementation-ejb > > > > implementation-ejb-xml > > > > policy-transaction > > > > runtime > > > > runtime-tomcat > > > > runtime-war > > > > > > > > Samples > > > > ====== > > > > > > > > Included (Over what was included in the last release) > > > > ------------ > > > > Nothing explicitly new but Helloworld samples have been reorganized > > > > > > > > Excluded > > > > -------------- > > > > helloworld-ws-deep-webapp - need to add to exclude list > > > > helloworld-ws-service-webapp > > > > loanapplication > > > > quote-xquery > > > > spi-implementation-pojo > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Luciano Resende > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ok, thanks Luciano. I'll respin the dependencies and see what has changed. Simon I still need to understand what JMS dependencies will be required. Looking at what we have at the moment the main issue I'm having is with Saxon. implementation-bpel depends on 8.7 and other parts of Tuscany, e.g. xml-bigbank, have a dependency on 9.0.0.2. I tried bringing implementation-bpel up to 9.0.0.2 with no luck. Is there someone who has been working on these areas that can advise how we can rationalize. The result at the moment is that we end up with a mixed set of jar versions added to the distribution and hence some of the samples/demos can't find the jars they require. I can't determine exactly how the jars are chosen. It could be the first or last module to specify a dependency or something else as we get some jars at 8.7 and some at 9.0.0.2. Can someone tell me how the distribution build chooses which jar version to ship. Thanks Simon
