cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eoghan Glynn <eogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Working towards a DOSGi 1.0 release
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:34:49 GMT
Hi David,

On the general point, I definitely agree that we need to be thinking about a
1.0 release.

On the specifics ...

> * 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...

In my commit last week (r756476), I updated ServicePublication to the latest
version from the OSGi SVN, so I think we're good on that score.

However as yet we don't actually do anything specific with the
remote-versioning mechanism defined in ServicePublication, i.e. the funky
service.interface.version="org.foo.bar|1.0.0.1 org.sna.fu|2.1" property. I'm
not sure though as to how much explicit mediation with this property
setting, if any, would be required by the DSW on the consumer side. So we'll
need to figure that out, and for completeness propbably do a bit of an audit
against the final 119 version to ensure we're in good shape otherwise.

Cheers,
Eoghan


2009/3/26 <davidb@apache.org>

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