Re: [swordfish-dev] Spring Osgi 1.0.2

[Oliver Wolf <oliver.wolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jason,

Swordfish is still moving forward -- we're actively working towards  
1.0, we're contributing to the Helios milestones and we'll publish a  
small feature update for 0.9.1 very soon.
I agree that there's not that much traffic on the mailing list, but if  
more people like you take the courage to raise issues, questions etc.  
this is certainly going to change soon.

Regarding your question, the decision to go with Spring OSGi 1.0.2 was  
just a pragmatic one, given the time constraints we had and the time  
it takes to shove things through the IP process.  In the next release  
we'll step up to the latest version and revert the changes we made to  
the SMX components in order to maintain compatibility with future  
versions.

@fellow committers:
Since we're starting to work on the 1.0 milestones, it probably makes  
sense to kick-off the IP process and try to get checkintocvs ASAP.  
What do you think?

Cheers,
Oliver



Am 29.10.2009 um 15:20 schrieb Jason Barkanic:

> This mailing list seems pretty inactive.  Is swordfish still moving  
> forward?  I guess I'll give another post a chance.
>
> I noticed that Swordfish is using Spring Osgi 1.0.2.  Several  
> Servicemix4 bundles (which use 1.2) were modified to remove options  
> not found in 1.0.2 (namely osgix:cm-properties were moved to  
> properties files).
>
> Was the decision to use 1.0.2 based on a technical issue (maybe an  
> incompatibility with Equinox, or some other issue?), or is that just  
> what came through the Eclipse IP process?
>
> I'm interested in using other SMX4 components with Swordfish, but  
> some of them have the same issue.  I know the whitepaper mentioned  
> the Servicemix library of components as an important thing for the  
> platform.
>
> It should be easy enough (although not desirable) to modify those  
> bundles to work with 1.0.2, but I was curious about the long term  
> goals.  Will SMX components be modified and made available as  
> Swordfish components, or will you seek to maintain compatibility?
>
>
>   -Jason
> <ATT00001.c>