directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release of Shared 1.0.0-M4
Date Wed, 25 May 2011 13:19:25 GMT

On 25 mai 2011, at 15:13, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> On 5/25/11 3:10 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>> On 25 mai 2011, at 14:52, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>> On 5/25/11 2:48 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>>>> Hi Emmanuel,
>>>> On 24 mai 2011, at 21:28, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> This is a vote for the forth milestone release on our way to a Shared
>>>>> and LDAP API 1.0. Many fixes have been injected, and some major refactoring
>>>>> have been done, including making the API OSGi compatible.
>>>> Hum, I thought the API was already OSGI compatible in previous milestones.
>>>> One major difference since 1.0.0-M3 I think is, the removal of the embedded
Apache Felix OSGI container.
>>> Hmm, you may be right. Or I expressed what I had in mind incorrectly : the API
is now OSGi compatible assuming your application has a OSGi container, but we don't provide
one. This is what I had in mind.
>>>>> The SVN tag:
>>>>> The source and binary distribution packages:
>>>> I thing these files are not necessary for the release and should not be copied
to the distribution server:
>>>> - apache-ldap-api-1.0.0-M4.pom
>>>> - apache-ldap-api-1.0.0-M4.pom.asc
>>>> - apache-ldap-api-1.0.0-M4.pom.asc.asc
>>> Sure. They have been generated automatically, I don't know why.
>>>> I'm not sure the key you used to sign the release has been added to the KEYS
file at the root of the Directory project distributions directory (However it seems to be
present in Mina's KEYS file).
>>>> I was unable to verify the *.asc signed files.
>>> ahha... May be the KEYS we have in directory is not up to date. Let me fix that.
>>>> Is it normal that we still bundle the "org.apache.felix.framework-3.2.0.jar"
module in the lib directory ?
>>> Hmmm, no. We have to remove the dependency, I guess. Some cleanup we can do in
>> Yeah, definitely...
>> I guess a dependency towards OSGI is still necessary since we have kept the bundle
activators to allow the use of the API in an OSGI environment.
>> Something less _expensive_ than the "Apache Felix Framework" could be used, like
the org.osgi:org.osgi.core module.
> The best, atm, would be to fill a JIRA.
> I'd like to get the 1.0.0-M4 out asap, if there is nothing wrong in the release, in order
to get back to documentation, using the modified API. This is mostly the reason I wanted this
release out, all in all...

Yeah, IMO, this isn't something blocker for the release.
Just a minor cleaning that we need to take care before the next milestone.

This aside, the release seems good to me.

[X] +1 Release Shared 1.0.0-M4

View raw message