On 5/28/05, Eddie ONeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Putting [EMAIL PROTECTED] back on the thread. > > Noel, Geir, or Craig, can you confirm for everyone that we must pass > the JSR 181 TCK before calling a release 1.0-final?
If the release includes code that claims to implement JSR181, then yes it does (just like any other implementation of any other JSR). If you released the non-JSR components separately, they would not be under any such restriction. > > Thanks. > > Eddie > Craig > > > > On 5/27/05, Jeremiah Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that I narrowed the scope of my opinions to beehive-dev, so if > > Craig, Noel, etc. are watching from general@incubator.apache.org, they > > may not have seen your comments, Eddie. > > > > - jeremiah > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eddie O'Neil > > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:42 PM > > > To: Beehive Developers > > > Subject: Re: [vote] beehive v1 milestone 1 release > > > > > > > > > One other thing -- if someone (Craig, Noel, Geir, etc) can explain > > > otherwise (that we can go -final without having passed the TCK) > > > definitely let us know. > > > > > > The sooner we do such a release, the better! > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie O'Neil wrote: > > > > Jeremiah-- > > > > > > > > It is my understanding after having talked to Craig and others who > > > > have been involved in the process of implementing a JSR before that > > we > > > > *can't* do a release of a JSR implementation until the spec is > > final. > > > > > > > > At this point, JSR 181 is not final, and as such, we can't say > > we're a > > > > final implementation of it. > > > > > > > > The process of getting the TCK to pass the Beehive WSM > > implementation > > > > is something that we're starting through the appropriate Apache > > > channels. > > > > > > > > As far as judging WSM, my understanding is that should be done > > against > > > > the TCK, which means that we need to wait for it to be public before > > we > > > > can pass it. > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremiah Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > >> I am not a committer, so I can't vote. I do have an opinion that I > > > >> would like to express about the release. > > > >> > > > >> In the 'beehive release status' email from May 19, it said that > > "we're > > > >> not able to go for a 'Final' release as the JSR 181 TCK is not yet > > > >> public". It is unclear when the TCK will be public, so I disagree > > with > > > >> the logic of waiting for a final release. It is unclear (to me) if > > the > > > >> TCK will even be for the version of JSR 181 that WSM has been > > > >> implemented against. There is a version of the JSR 181 that has > > been > > > >> voted final and Beehive WSM has been coded according to the current > > > >> status of JSR 181. > > > >> > > > >> In looking at the JSR 181 status, I see that Sun has been 'assured > > by > > > >> the spec lead that both [of their concerns] will be address > > quickly'. > > > >> At least one of those concerns (full alignment with JAX-RPC 2.0) > > will > > > >> probably result in changes to JSR 181 and the TCK. If the TCK > > isn't > > > >> available now, then it seems logical to me that the Sun changes > > will be > > > >> incorporated into the TCK before the TCK becomes public. (Note > > that > > > >> even though I work at BEA - I have no connection to the JSR 181 > > spec > > > and > > > >> no idea what the status of the TCK is). The cycles that seem > > possible > > > >> to me could just continue to push 1.0 Final. > > > >> > > > >> It seems sensible to me to be voting on going 1.0 and then when the > > TCK > > > >> is public and if Beehive can get it, then any incompatibilities > > should > > > >> be recorded as bugs. I say 'if Beehive can get it' because it > > seems > > > >> that OSS projects in the past have had trouble getting TCKs and I > > don't > > > >> know if that will be the case with the JSR 181 TCK or not. > > > >> > > > >> WSM should be judged as best as possible against JSR 181 without > > the > > > >> TCK. If WSM is judged to be in line with JSR 181, then go 1.0; if > > not, > > > >> then fix it. I think that Beehive should be used as a 1.0 release. > > > >> > > > >> Those are my opinions. Kill me now. > > > >> > > > >> - jeremiah > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Eddie O'Neil > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:02 PM > > > >>> To: Beehive Developers; general@incubator.apache.org > > > >>> Subject: [vote] beehive v1 milestone 1 release > > > >>> > > > >>> All-- > > > >>> > > > >>> The blocking bugs have been dealt with and we've been adding > > > >>> documentation and samples furiously over the last couple of weeks. > > > >>> > > > >>> At this point, I'd like to propose that we release a Beehive 1.0 > > > >>> milestone 1. The code is ready to go -- though I believe that a > > few > > > >>> committers have some outstanding documentation and samples still > > to be > > > >>> completed. > > > >>> > > > >>> So, I suggest that we kick the tires of the branch at SVN change > > > >>> 178556 in beehive/branches/v1/m1 (being created now) and let a few > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> more > > > >> > > > >>> doc / sample related checkins trickle in over the next couple of > > days. > > > >>> If anyone has concerns about this, please feel free to say so... > > > >>> > > > >>> Tomorrow (Thursday), nightlies will be cut from this branch so > > that > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> a > > > >> > > > >>> binary distribution is also available for download. > > > >>> > > > >>> Given the coming long weekend in the US, this vote will close at > > > >>> 20:00 (8:00PM) GMT on Tuesday, 05/31/2005. Should be plenty of > > time > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> to > > > >> > > > >>> take the release out to play. :) > > > >>> > > > >>> I'll start this off with my +1. > > > >>> > > > >>> Eddie > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> ===== > > > >>> > > > >>> Vote: > > > >>> [+1] Yes, the release is ready to go from beehive/branches/v1/m1. > > > >>> [0] Abstain / not sure. > > > >>> [-1] No, the release is not ready yet. If you vote this way, > > please > > > >>> provide an explanation why and add what could be done to address > > your > > > >>> concerns. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
