tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Laws" <simonsl...@googlemail.com>
Subject Saxon versions - was: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:21:59 GMT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Release 1.1 - what will be ready for next week?
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org




On Dec 28, 2007 4:00 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:

> Implementation-bpel was OK. I have added implementation-widget and
> implementation-data-api.
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 4:59 AM, Luciano Resende < luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Good point Haleh, implementation.bpel should not be excluded,
> > implementation-data-api should not either as it's being used in the
> > store tutorial scenario. Let me check if I can fix this on the
> > distribution files...
> >
> >
> > On Dec 27, 2007 7:51 PM, haleh mahbod <hmahbod@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Simon,
> > > Thank you for trying to get a release candidate ready during the
> holidays.
> > > Why is implementation.bpel excluded?
> > >
> > > Haleh
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/21/07, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 19, 2007 10:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> rajinisivaram@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't have an ID yet. Please do the update for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you...
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajini
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/19/07, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> rajinisivaram@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simon,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There shouldn't be any visible effect because of the
> classloading
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the Tuscany runtime (at least that was the goal). It enables
> Tuscany
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > run in a multi-classloader environment including inside
OSGi.
> By
> > > > > > default,
> > > > > > > Tuscany continues to run using a single CLASSPATH-based
> classloader.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Contribution classloading was also modified. As a result,
> > > > > contributions
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > longer need to be in the CLASSPATH. All import/export
> dependencies
> > > > > > across
> > > > > > > contributions should be explicitly specified (as described
in
> the
> > > > > spec).
> > > > > > > Earlier, classes from contributions were loaded using the
> thread
> > > > > context
> > > > > > > classloader (typically using CLASSPATH), and import/export
> > > > statements
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > not have any effect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/18/07, Simon Laws < simonslaws@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 1:37 PM, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com
> >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM, ant elder < ant.elder@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 10:03 AM, Simon Laws <
> > > > simonslaws@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 9:45 AM, Luciano Resende
<
> > > > > luckbr1975@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Following Ant's question, after
you cut the first
> RC,
> > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > > > would continue on trunk or on
a branch ? Based on
> the
> > > > > > timeframe
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > considering we would still work
on issues on the
> week of
> > > > Jan
> > > > > > > 7th,
> > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > recommend continue on trunk until
sometime around
> end of
> > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 12:22 AM, ant
elder <
> ant.elder@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the tomcat
deep integration, JMS, or
> > > > > > > distribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes would all be done
by next week. Haven't
> seen
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > jsonrpc references recently
either. We do have all
> of
> > > > the
> > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to continue development though
right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    ...ant
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:59 PM,
Simon Laws <
> > > > > > > simonslaws@googlemail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Following on from the
JIRA tidy up note here are
> a few
> > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > areas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen activity on
over the last few weeks
> and so
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > ready to
> > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release 1.1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep tomcat integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better JMS support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > More policy function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Modeling of client side
java script components
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better support for doman
API suggested by
> assembly
> > > > spec
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Domain based and standalone
node operation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Domain lookup for remote
access to domain
> services.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JPA
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPEL fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Distribution structure
changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you fill in the
detail and tell me what we
> can get
> > > > > in,
> > > > > > > > > > > i.e.addwhat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing from the list,
add details to what is on
> the
> > > > > list,
> > > > > > > > > > indicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't be on the
list. Think of this as
> forming the
> > > > > > > CHANGES
> > > > > > > > > > text
> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should look like [1].
Even better go and update
> the
> > > > > > CHANGES
> > > > > > > > > > doc:-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a reminder here is
the timeline I'm working
> to. I'm
> > > > > > > > planning
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > spending
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > next week working on
the first RC. Building the
> > > > > > > distribution,
> > > > > > > > > > fixing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > samples, READMES, licenses
etc. The objective
> being to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > candidate before I go
away for the holidays for
> people
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > leisure. This means
that when everyone is back
> we can
> > > > > > spend
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > week
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > beginning 7th Jan knocking
it into shape until
> we get
> > > > an
> > > > > > RC
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following week,
beginning 14th would also be
> taken
> > > > > up
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > voting
> > > > > > > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > view to releasing the
week beginning 21st (or
> earlier
> > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > done).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that still sound
reasonable to everyone.
> Are
> > > > there
> > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that must be in 1.1.
that can't be done in this
> > > > > timescale?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> <
> > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > > <
> > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > > > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende><
> > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If people are agreed that any
work that gets
> committed to
> > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Christmas holidays is related to fixing
up the content
> of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > candidate contents we finalize next
week then I'm
> happy to
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > effort
> > > > > > > > > > > going on trunk with a view to cutting
the branch
> including
> > > > all
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > fixes
> > > > > > > > > > > people have made when I get back on
the 2nd Jan. We
> could
> > > > hope
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > "RC0" to catch 90% of the release issues
and reduce
> the pain
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > this 90% by allowing the fixes to happen
in just one
> place.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If people have other projects in mind
that take the
> trunk in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > direction then I'll take a branch next
week.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Doing it next year sounds good to me, i've
no plans to
> start
> > > > on
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > not related to 1.1 over the break but i
would find it
> useful
> > > > to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > time to finish things off.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   ...ant
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do want to get an RC done next week (from the
trunk)
> which we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > test with and which I hope shows what we intend
to release
> in
> > > > 1.1.
> > > > > > > From
> > > > > > > > > past experience we know that the first time we
try to get
> it all
> > > > > > > > together
> > > > > > > > > there will be many things to fix and things to
finish. I
> > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > that to include, for example, inclusion of new
modules
> that we
> > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > discussed here or material changes to the structure
of the
>
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > point of this being that we shouldn't be in 1.1.
> development
> > > > mode
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > January comes round and that we are focused on
getting
> 1.1through
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > release votes with all the fixing and fiddling
we know
> that
> > > > > entails.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm planning to spend the next 3 days working on getting
the
>
> > > > > mechanics
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the release in place for 1.1 and working on bug fixes.
From
> the
> > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > that I postulated at the start of this and peoples
> subsequent
> > > > > replies
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > believe we can expect these pieces of work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   - Better JMS support
> > > > > > > >      - What level of support are we now expecting?
> > > > > > > >   - JAXB based POJO transformations.
> > > > > > > >   - More policy function including JAAS and better
designed
> policy
> > > > > > > >   handlers
> > > > > > > >   - Modeling of client side java script components
> > > > > > > >   - JSONRPC reference binding
> > > > > > > >      - Can someone comment is this is actually done?
> > > > > > > >   - Better support for doman API suggested by assembly
spec
> > > > > including
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >   standalone node and nodes running connected together
in a
> > > > domain.
> > > > > > > >   - Class loading and OSGI improvements
> > > > > > > >   - Support for BPEL references
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please check the accuracy of this and let me know
what is
> missing.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > particular I want more detail on what we can expect
for
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JMS - for example
> > > > > > > >   Point to point, XML messages, Callbacks?
> > > > > > > > JSONRPC references
> > > > > > > >   Is this done now?
> > > > > > > > Class loading and OSGI improvements
> > > > > > > >   What new features/behaviour will people see in the
> release?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, thank you everyone for the updates. I'm starting to get
a
> feel for
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > we are at and what to look out for. Please go and update the
> CHANGES
> > > > > file
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > trunk when you get a change. Rajini do you have your ID yet?
If
> not
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > do the update.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So based on these comments this is what is being added/excluded for
> 1.1
> > > >
> > > > Modules:
> > > > =======
> > > >
> > > > Included (Over what was included in the last release)
> > > > -------------
> > > > binding-jms
> > > > implementation-widget
> > > >
> > > > Excluded
> > > > --------------
> > > > assembly-java-dsl
> > > > databinding-fastinfoset
> > > > implementation-bpel
> > > > implementation-das
> > > > implementation-data-api
> > > > implementation-data-xml
> > > > implementation-ejb
> > > > implementation-ejb-xml
> > > > policy-transaction
> > > > runtime
> > > > runtime-tomcat
> > > > runtime-war
> > > >
> > > > Samples
> > > > ======
> > > >
> > > > Included (Over what was included in the last release)
> > > > ------------
> > > > Nothing explicitly new but Helloworld samples have been reorganized
> > > >
> > > > Excluded
> > > > --------------
> > > > helloworld-ws-deep-webapp   - need to add to exclude list
> > > > helloworld-ws-service-webapp
> > > > loanapplication
> > > > quote-xquery
> > > > spi-implementation-pojo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
> Ok, thanks Luciano. I'll respin the dependencies and see what has changed.


Simon

I still need to understand what JMS dependencies will be required.

Looking at what we have at the moment the main issue I'm having is with
Saxon. implementation-bpel depends on 8.7 and other parts of Tuscany, e.g.
xml-bigbank, have a dependency on 9.0.0.2. I tried bringing
implementation-bpel up to 9.0.0.2 with no luck. Is there someone who has
been working on these areas that can advise how we can rationalize.

The result at the moment is that we end up with a mixed set of jar versions
added to the distribution and hence some of the samples/demos can't find the
jars they require. I can't determine exactly how the jars are chosen. It
could be the first or last module to specify a dependency or something else
as we get some jars at 8.7 and some at 9.0.0.2. Can someone tell me how the
distribution build chooses which jar version to ship.

Thanks

Simon

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