From celix-dev-return-207-apmail-incubator-celix-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Jun 11 08:37:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-celix-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-celix-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3A8C97AB for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14536 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2012 08:37:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-celix-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 14497 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2012 08:37:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact celix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list celix-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 14484 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jun 2012 08:37:20 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:37:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of s.zelzer@dkfz-heidelberg.de designates 192.54.49.101 as permitted sender) Received: from [192.54.49.101] (HELO mx-ext.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de) (192.54.49.101) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:37:12 +0000 Received: from [192.168.11.2] (HSI-KBW-46-223-218-16.hsi.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [46.223.218.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx-ext.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8/smtpin) with ESMTP id q5B8adRa001412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:36:40 +0200 Message-ID: <4FD5AE17.3040005@dkfz-heidelberg.de> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:36:39 +0200 From: Sascha Zelzer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Celix 0.0.1 release and Native-OSGI References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mx-ext.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de [192.54.49.101]); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:36:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mx-ext.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,LOCAL_AUTH_GREY autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 Hi, great news! I completely agree with Pepijn. Cleaning up the project structure and making the build system more modular is in my opinion a top priority. Best, Sascha On 06/11/2012 09:56 AM, Pepijn Noltes wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Alexander Broekhuis > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> We would like to work towards a first release for Celix, and would like to >> know what everyone thinks that has to be in there. >> >> Please note, this is a 0.0.1 release, so take this into account when >> considering items to be in there. >> >> Some items I think that have to be fixed: >> * API code style >> Currently the code doesn't follow the API style all over the place. >> Personally I think this has to be fixed for the framework at least. >> * Remote Import/ExportService header and disable the resolver >> Currently the resolver isn't needed at all, but is still "semi"-used. >> This can be disabled (for now at least). >> * Make build more modular >> As discussed on [1]. >> * Small updates to CMake files >> Currently several libraries are used directly, ie not via a >> Find{LibName}. For these libraries a Find{LibName} module has to be written. >> Libraries that I know of; OpenSLP and Jansson >> >> One last thing; we have started working on the NativeOSGi project, and one >> of the goals is, is to let Celix use this API and be a reference >> implementation. While I think this will be a great step forward for Celix, >> I also think the work needed to get this done is quite a lot. As such I >> would like to make a 0.0.1 release without following the NativeOSGi work. >> >> A next release definitely will follow it, but having a first release is >> really needed after 1.5 years. >> >> What do you all think and what is missing for a 0.0.1 release? > I agree on all points and can't think of anything more we really need > for the first release. IMO the main focus should be that people can > build and therefore tryout Celix with at least a possible external > dependencies, but - correct if I am wrong - this will be adressed by > making the build more module. So I have nothing to add to that list. > > > Greetings, > Pepijn