Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Working towards a DOSGi 1.0 release
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:07:11 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.1 (Linux/2.6.29-gentoo; KDE/4.2.1; x86_64; ; )
Cc: davidb@apache.org
References: <a1e060230903260949j52337c46y788c2204779f3277@mail.gmail.com>
 <008301c9ae52$50cbe1e0$0c02050a@emea.progress.com>
 <a1e060230904060642j5e4cd8bckfd8a53983fa0ddd2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a1e060230904060642j5e4cd8bckfd8a53983fa0ddd2@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200904061707.12112.dkulp@apache.org>


Well, I have two thoughts...   :-)

1) Getting something out soon is a great idea.   Doesn't really matter to me 
if its 0.9 or 1.0.   Almost want to say 1.0 with a release note documenting 
the known issue.

However.....

2) I'm thinking about 2.2.1 builds on April 20th (although I could EASILY be 
convinced to go earlier).  Would it make sense to base it on that?

Dan


On Mon April 6 2009 9:42:21 am davidb@apache.org wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been doing some work regarding CXF-1966, removing the Equinox
> jars and moving the system tests to use Felix 1.4.1. It now works with
> Spring 1.2.0-rc2-SNAPSHOT.
>
> As Eoghan says, there is still the missing functionality around the
> versions in the ServicePublication. The impact here is that if you
> have a service that exposes interface A version 1 and a consumer has
> interface A version 2, while these 2 are binary incompatible, the
> system is not capable of telling that there is a mismatch. The current
> code base simply assumes that they are compatible...
>
> While this is a gap that needs to be fixed, it might still be worth
> doing some sort of a release, as what's there today is quite useful in
> itself. Maybe we shouldn't call it 1.0, but something like 0.9
> instead?
> Having a release out there means that folks can start using this
> without having to depend on SNAPSHOT jars.
>
> My understanding is that Spring 1.2.0 will be out some day this week.
> I think it would be good do to a release of some sort at that stage...
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> David
>
> 2009/3/26 Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozk@progress.com>:
> > 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

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog