celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Broekhuis <a.broekh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Feature priority next release
Date Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:36:11 GMT
Hi,

2013/10/1 Gerrit Binnenmars <gerritbinnenmars@gmail.com>

> Hello,
>
> Everyone, thanks for the work done lately.
> I think it useful to discuss about the minimum features required in the
> next release.
> For me the priorities are:
> 1. Jira issues 80, 81 (remote service using shm)
> 2. Jira issue 68 (memory leaks)
> 3. Jira issue 81 (Log service), Pepijn or Alexander can one of you analyze
> what needs to be done?
> Nice to have:
> 4. Jira issue 77 (Config admin)
> 5. Jira issue 48 (Event admin)


This changes a bit from the list that was created a couple of months ago
[1]. But I don't have a problem with a change of focus. From the list on
[1], the following items are still open:
* CELIX-69 Check for win32 (visual studio) support
* CELIX-68 Check for memory leaks
* CELIX-65 add bonjour support for Remote Service Admin
* CELIX-64 Add support for ccputest
* CELIX-63 make cmake directory useable for custom bundle projects
* CELIX-61 use apr calls instead of malloc, free, pthreads, etc

Going through this list, I don't have any objections with postponing
CELIX-69 and CELIX-61. Reasons for this are a lack of Win32 users (if there
are any, please speak up! I still think Win32 should be supported, but just
not now). Regarding APR usage, I think we have to wait a bit and discuss
the usage of APR after a release. So heavily investing in APR usage now
doesn't make much sense imo.

So that leaves 63, 64, 65, 68 and now also 80, 81 (SHM remote services) and
87 (I assume you made a typo in your mail).

CELIX-87 has already been discussed on the list, and I agree that solving
framework logging makes sense.
CELIX-80, CELIX-81: Seeing the current state of the patch I don't see a
reason for not including it. So fine by me.
CELIX-68: Was already on the list.
CELIX-65: Not on your list, but for interoperability with Java-OSGi RSA I
do think it should be part of a next release
CELIX-64: I have invested quite some time in this already, and pushed a
large commit yesterday. So even though maybe not everything will be tested,
what is there can be part of the next release.
CELIX-63: To make it easier to use Celix I'd like to see this one fixed as
well. Some parts are already done.

Regarding 48 and 77, I don't know the state of the code, we should
check/test it. If it mostly works it can be added. But see my remark below
concerning versioning.

Versioning:
Although we are talking about a 1.0.0 release, this doesn't automatically
that all components (bundles) are also 1.0.0. So a subset can be bumped to
1.0.0 while others are still a bit behind. So even if we think the Event
and Config Admin (or the SHM RSA) isn't quite ready for 1.0.0, they can
still be part of the release. As Marcel mentions on [1], Apache is about
release source code, not binaries, so we release all sources. The fact that
the framework and all bundles are separate components makes it possible to
have different version internally.

Wdyt?


[1]: http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/fza43iypjutcw2rm


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,

Alexander Broekhuis

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message