cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sergey Beryozkin" <sbery...@progress.com>
Subject Re: Working towards a DOSGi 1.0 release
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:34:49 GMT
Hi David

I agree. CXF 2.2.1 should not be far away - perhaps in 4 weeks or 5 weeks but with the TCK
work 'looming' I'd probably not want to 
ask you to postpone a release and find myself telling you later on ' I won't make it :-)'.
DOSGI users do need a release so I agree 
with what you suggested

thanks, Sergey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <davidb@apache.org>
To: <dev@cxf.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Working towards a DOSGi 1.0 release


> Great to hear about the JAXRS component for DOSGi, Sergey!
>
> What is the expected release timeframe of CXF 2.2.1?
> If its a bit further out, why not do a DOSGi 1.0 release based on CXF
> 2.2 and then do another 1.1 release with the JAXRS stuff as soon as
> 2.2.1 is out?
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> 2009/3/26 Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozk@progress.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm quite keen to emded a JAXRS component into DOSGI as I reckon we now have
>> all the pieces in place (proxy based client api support, and Benson's Aegis
>> provider) so it should, fingers crossed, be a fairly straighforward exercise
>> - but then you never know what could actually happen at the development time
>> :-) The only missing thing is that cxf-minimal bundle would need to be
>> upgraded to keep a jaxrs component (+ 250K - which may not be too bad) - but
>> it will be released in 2.2.1 only so DOSGI release would need to be
>> postponed until then - so perhaps such an enhancement can be done later
>> on....
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since CXF 2.2 is out now I was thinking about what work needs to be
>>> done for a DOSGi 1.0 release.
>>>
>>> I've just updated the poms to depend on CXF 2.2, but there's still a
>>> few things to do...
>>>
>>> * there is CXF-1966. It would be good to get a solution to this. I
>>> heard that Spring-DM 1.2.0 is going to be released within 2 weeks and
>>> that version should work with Felix 1.4.1, so I'm considering removing
>>> the checked in Equinox jar and moving to 1.2.0-RC1 using Felix for the
>>> moment until we can depend on Spring-DM 1.2.0. Are folks generally ok
>>> with that? Once Equinox 3.5 is released, maybe we can add it back in
>>> to system test runs as a second platform, by obtaining it from maven
>>> or wget or something once its available in a fixed place...
>>> * We need to make sure that all the API's we are using are exactly
>>> correct with the lasted RFC 119 version, e.g. I think we need to add
>>> something to the ServicePublication interface...
>>>
>>> Anything else we need to think of?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> 


Mime
View raw message