avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Release Plan] Excalibur (Phase I)
Date Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:48:54 GMT
Leo Simons wrote:
>> We have a soft dependency on AltRMI, so we can opt to push that
>> release later if necessary.  Paul how do you feel about getting
>> an AltRMI release out?
> 
> 
> it looks like AltRMI is indeed getting a new home @ incubator 
> (whoohooh!). In the light of that, I suggest we don't release any altrmi 
> packages with a status other than alpha.

The dependency is very soft.  It does not have to be included at all,
although we can have Instrument-Manager released with the "experimental"
feature (which seems pretty stable BTW).  As long as it is marked that
way, we should be OK.  If AltRMI is not in the classpath, the standard
transport is always available.


>> We cannot mark Component as deprecated until Fortress is released.
>> When Fortress is released, we should also release a new ECM where all
>> the classes are deprecated in favor of the Fortress version.
> 
> 
> +1. Which no-one will ever use of course ;)

Of course.  It is a necessary evil in product migrations.

> 
>> We should also put out one last fully deprecated release of
>> Excalibur Concurrent and Excalibur Collections. 
> 
> 
> but these are not needed by ECM right? So we do those in Phase II or III?

They are not needed by ECM, but they are by Cocoon.  Cocoon needs to
provide binary back compatibility for any of their users who have used
those classes.

Besides, they might have some of their own code that needs migration.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message