river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Source drop and bug database
Date Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:59:46 GMT

On Jan 4, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Jim Hurley wrote:

> Hi Mark-
> Thanks for getting this discussion going.
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 4:13 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The first step before we really can get started is the initial source
>> drop by Sun and Artima. While it feels rude to initiate this by me, I
>> think it is worth having a discussion about what gets dropped. I  
>> hope,
>> but please correct me if I'm wrong, the fastest way to get this  
>> done is
>> by stating my opinion as a proposal.
>> Below you will find my proposal as to what I would like to see become
>> the baseline from where the River project should start following the
>> roadmap we have to craft.
> We did have to touch on this in our project proposal (see:
> <http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RiverProposal>, "(2) identify
> the initial source from with the project is to be populated". We
> had identified the Starter Kit (and link to the latest published
> version). Although we did not explicitly state v2.1, it was certainly
> meant to be implied that it would be the latest published version.
> We also identified ServiceUI and a link to the latest published
> version (v1.1a).
> Finally, we identified the QATests project, which contained the
> tests and harness we used for testing releases of the Starter Kit.
>> 1) ServiceUI version 1.1a
>> 2) Outstanding issues, if any, against ServiceUI version 1.1a
> Bill - if you have any substantive issues (logged, or just scribbled
> on a notepad), I agree that it would be good to seed the incubator
> project JIRA with them.
>> 3) JTSK code version 2.1.1 [1], all parts which Sun can transfer  
>> to the
>>    ASF, even the code we will likely remove [2] according to the  
>> roadmap
>> 4) Outstanding issues against JTSK version 2.1.1
> I'm not sure of the logistics for getting issues moved from our
> internal system to JIRA, but it's something we'll need to look
> at relatively soon. We certainly want and expect to get the major
> issues we have logged moved over.
>> [1] my main motivation for bringing in the latest public version  
>> of the
>> JTSK and not a newer version is that many people are familiar with  
>> 2.1.1
>> and it will be this version that people have patches against that are
>> not yet incorporated by Sun. Also I think the integration of the code
>> modifications between the main/internal version branch of Sun and
>> version 2.1.1 will be a good exercise for the initial committers and
>> those interested in becoming one to get acquainted with the  
>> process 'in
>> place'.
> We're definitely in sync on this one.
>> [2] I realize 'what to be left out' has been questioned in the Jini
>> community, but I can't recall there was a conclusion. Therefore to  
>> me it
>> seems to make sense to have that discussion here, in the hope it  
>> can be
>> swift.
> There have been various, mixed, and interesting discussions on
> what should or should not be included from the Starter Kit. To my
> mind there were never any conclusions (or consensus) reached and
> our plan was to move over the Starter Kit (sans 3rd party code - only
> the installer as far as I know)

Jim, there is custom code written as part of the installer -- if  
memory serves me, code that verifies multicast, and other network and  
file system properties.  Perhaps this could be useful to the River  
community as well?


> and have the discussion as part of
> incubating at Apache.
>> -- 
>> Mark
> -Jim

View raw message