aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Date Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:51:54 GMT
Makes sense to me.


Regards,
Alan

On Jan 26, 2010, at 11:38 PM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:

> I do not think it would become undeprecated though. I think when the  
> OSGi Alliance specify how namespace handlers work we would end up  
> with new interfaces in new packages and we would drop support for  
> the existing packages.
>
> Alasdair
>
> On 27 Jan 2010, at 04:39, "Alan D. Cabrera" <list@toolazydogs.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> I've never seen a deprecated interface subsequently become  
>> undeprecated.
>>
>> Maybe we could mark the version 1.0-RC1?
>>
>> Just an idea.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:59 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> I'd love to see a release of aries-blueprint in particular.  I  
>>> wonder if it would be a good idea to mark "deprecated" some of the  
>>> interfaces such as NamespaceHandler that aren't yet in a spec and  
>>> might change but will be used by lots of people?  On the other  
>>> hand geronimo-blueprint got released without such markings.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's been a lot of activity lately so I'd like to propose we  
>>>> do a
>>>> release so we can get some wider user feedback. I think we should  
>>>> give
>>>> it a version of 0.1 and stick to versions <1 while we're in the
>>>> Incubator.
>>>>
>>>> Then there is the question of whether to independently version the
>>>> high level modules or keep them lock-step. For now I think we  
>>>> should
>>>> keep them lock-step until we feel a need to change that.
>>>>
>>>> What does everyone think?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>


Mime
View raw message