Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 67886 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 21:22:29 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 21:22:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 25250 invoked by uid 97); 5 Feb 2003 21:24:02 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 25243 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 21:24:01 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 21:24:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 66885 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2003 21:22:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 66819 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 21:22:16 -0000 Received: from nan-smtp-05.noos.net (HELO smtp.noos.fr) (212.198.2.74) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 21:22:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 31571481 invoked by uid 0); 5 Feb 2003 21:22:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO apache.org) ([212.198.17.4]) (envelope-sender ) by 212.198.2.74 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Feb 2003 21:22:21 -0000 Message-ID: <3E4180BD.9010900@apache.org> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:23:09 +0100 From: Stephen McConnell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: [Release Plan] Excalibur (Phase I) References: <3E4078B1.1080304@apache.org> <3E415C96.1050800@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Berin Loritsch wrote: > 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. Can you explain the notion of "soft"? As I undertand things you can build and deploy using the Instrument package - but to do anything with this you need an instument manager which talks to an instrument client. If code includes the instrument manager then currently that means a *hard* dependency on AltRMI. Fortress has a hard dependency on Instrument Manager therefor it has a hard dependecy on AltRMI. Is this correct or not? Cheere, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:mcconnell@apache.org http://www.osm.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org