felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Date Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:37:26 GMT
Richard, I think that I asked this before and maybe there was a reply.  
Is it possible to get the ASF a license to run the tests in a similar 
manner that Sun let's our projects have access to its TCKs?


Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Arnaud Quiblier wrote:
>> I read in a thread named "OSGI R4 specification compliance" that Felix
>> passed the OSGi's TCK.
>> This is really interesting news.
> Felix does NOT pass the TCK...if it did, there wouldn't be any need to 
> volunteer. :-)
> Felix is close to passing the TCK for mandatory spec features.
>> Yes, I'm a volunteer ...
>> Can you give us issues you consider as High Priority ?
> The TCK results page lists all of the issues that need to be worked on:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/Felix+OSGi+TCK+Results
> I am currently in the process of working on require-bundle 
> (FELIX-28)...I imagine after that I will look into fragments 
> (FELIX-29). I don't have any time table for either of these, but 
> hopefully require-bundle will not be that far off.
> Any of the other issues are fine to consider for implementation.
>> Must issues tagged "0.8.0" in Felix's JIRA be considered as urgent ?
> Issues tagged for "0.8.0" are important if/when we get ready to make a 
> public release of Felix, but they are generally not related to passing 
> the TCK.
> I would say that the most self-contained issues would be: FELIX-23, 
> FELIX-26, FELIX-27, and FELIX-32. Perhaps FELIX-31, FELIX-100, and 
> FELIX-102 wouldn't be too bad either.
> Just pick one and look into it...I can answer any questions that you 
> have and will be more than happy to discuss any potential approaches 
> if needed.
> Good luck.
> -> richard

View raw message