aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Date Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:09:58 GMT
I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I think 
there is at least one complication.  Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader 
generate EBAs using different techniques - but both leverage the 
maven-antrun-plugin to finally produce a file of type "eba".

I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a maven 

One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a jar using 
the maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.  The jar will 
be managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an "application" 
even with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba".  If that is correct 
then perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable approach 
for the 1st release.  Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox 
assembly to deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual 


Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I'd like to see at least those included:
>   * blueprint
>   * jmx
>   * jndi
>   * transaction
> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't really
> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
> The transaction component is functional and we've been using it mostly
> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking about
> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <> wrote:
>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for volunteering
>> to be the release manager.  Your response helps me get a better picture of
>> the plans.
>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing since it
>> hadn't been discussed yet.  To get the release out in Feb means it will be
>> delivered next week.  I'm afraid the hill might be a little too steep to
>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>> The more communication the better.  It's important to get everybody thinking
>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there are any
>> differences of opinion).  Knowing that you are thinking of creating a
>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting more restrictive
>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out - but in
>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't functional. At
>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of the
>> components are fully functional yet (for example transaction).
>> Best Regards,
>> Joe
>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now out on
>>> vacation until monday.
>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we have
>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must haves'
>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the distribution
>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of the
>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible. Since
>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns - w.r.t
>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If there are
>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included please
>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and target
>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target a new
>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeremy
>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <> wrote:
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the release and
>>>> potential
>>>> target dates?
>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your thoughts in an email
>>>> or
>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we make
>>>> progress.
>>>>  Of particular interest would be the content that we would like to see in
>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from "nice to
>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates for the release,
>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the release.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joe
>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <> wrote:
>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot.  Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to put those
>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the process has
>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller <>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all components
at a
>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning scheme,
>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an issue.
>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an important
>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this happen...
>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Blog:
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> --
>>>> Joe
>> --
>> Joe


View raw message