cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <>
Subject 2.0.1 & 2.1 Releases
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:21:24 GMT
Yes, its that time - we get to start thinking about post 2.0 releases! (and
2.0 isn't even fully out yet  - but its close ;-))

First: 2.0.1. I think its important to follow up with bug fix releases quite
often in general, but especially after the first release. We'll see a lot
more people start to use CXF once 2.0 is out I believe. And I'm sure they'll
find all sorts of bugs. So I'd like to propose that we follow up with
2.0.1within 3-4 weeks of
2.0 (i.e. vote on it 3-4 weeks from today).

The question of 2.1 is a bit more complex. I see several things on the
possible agenda for 2.1:
- JAX-WS 2.1 & JAXB 2.1
- Refactoring the build better to help with the tool dependency issues
- WS-SX (Trust, SecureConversation, SecurityPolicy)
- WS RM 1.1?
- Better REST service support - WADL, JSR 311 early draft?
- WSDL 2? (I see this one as increasingly irrelevant as there has been
almost no take up of WSDL 2, and I think it'd be a distraction for us right
- SCA integration? (coincidentally, I noticed the Fabric3 team has started
CXF integration)
- Others? I'm sure there are many other important issues out there...

I see two philosophies by which we can release 2.1
1. The fixed time philosophy - i.e. We do a release every 8-10 weeks
2. The fixed feature set philosophy - i.e. we do a release only once these
features are ready

I'm a much bigger fan of philosophy #1 as I think it serves users much
better. But I am open to to either provided we make frequent bug fix
releases for 2.0. The one constraint that I see on 2.1 is that we will need
to do JAX-WS 2.1 TCK testing which will take how ever long it takes. So even
if we go by the "fixed time" philosophy, our window can't be smaller than
the time it takes to implement those APIs and do TCK testing.

Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions |

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