You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@tuscany.apache.org by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/08 19:02:20 UTC
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix for
1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on what's
important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post soon, but
in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added recently
out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants the
title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like to do
this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling feeling
of things that ought to have been done ;-)
What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0 release to
be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the caveat of
course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into the
release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
--
Kelvin.
On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kelvin,
>
> I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> appreciated.
>
> In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> bit later in the week.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking about
> a
> next release which I believe can be given the version tag 1.0-incubator
> . We
> have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we currently
> have 33 open JIRAs.
>
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
>
> Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you and, if
> possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
>
> If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a really
> good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about using
> the
> beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the next
> one.
> Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve the
> instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> another
> thread).
>
>
> Kelvin.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christian,
thanks for your suggestions. The implementation for the first part
(getUpperBound) of your point 1 is already available in the new api variant
of the SDOUtil [1] class (the old SDOUtil now being deprecated). Adding
getLowerBound() would be simple, but you may have noticed that there is
already a nod in that direction with the SDOUtil.isRequired() method, which
may serve your needs.
For point 2, I think you should be able to do
type.getInstanceProperties() and find the Property called "enumeration".
Then you can get the enumerations using that Property.
(see MetaDataInstancePropertiesTestCase [2])
For point 3, I think we could add something like this as an SDOUtil method,
but an interesting aspect of this would be describing exactly what it does.
It would be validating simple schema facet constraints, but it wouldn't be a
full schema validator. Some of the things it would be doing would be hard
to relate back to SDO concepts I think, I'd have to look in more detail to
get the full picture. However, if you opened a JIRA and were able to supply
a patch for this, I feel sure we could add it, with some description, and
perhaps a few words of warning that the behaviour is not always entirely
describable in SDO terms alone.
Regards, Kelvin.
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/lib/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sdo/api/SDOUtil.java
[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/src/test/java/org/apache/tuscany/sdo/test/MetadataInstancePropertiesTestCase.java
On 11/06/07, Christian Landbo Frederiksen <CL...@ementor.dk> wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I have a couple of places where I go beyond the SDO classes and into
> EMF, that I would to see included into some of the SDO utilities:
>
> 1. Upper and lower bound on properties where 'isMany' is true:
>
> I have implemented it like this
>
> public static int getUpperBound(Property property) {
>
> return ((EStructuralFeature) property).getUpperBound();
> }
>
> public static int getLowerBound(Property property) {
>
> return ((EStructuralFeature) property).getLowerBound();
> }
>
> The SDOUtil class seems a perfect place to put these.
>
> 2. The enumeration facet
>
> I need to know whether a type has enumerated restrictions:
>
> public static List<String> getEnumerationFacet(Type type) {
>
> return
> ExtendedMetaData.INSTANCE.getEnumerationFacet((EDataType)type);
> }
>
>
> 3. Validation
>
> I do validation using Diagnostic:
>
> Diagnostic diagnostic = Diagnostician.INSTANCE.validate((EObject)
> dataObject);
> if (diagnostic.getSeverity() == Diagnostic.ERROR) {
> .....
>
> I haven't seen if SDO 2.1 has introduced other kind of validation of if
> a funtionality is in the making...
>
>
> /Chr
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kelvin goodson [mailto:kelvingoodson@gmail.com]
> Sent: 8. juni 2007 19:02
> To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
>
> I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> for
> 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on what's
> important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post soon,
> but
> in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> recently
> out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> the
> title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like to
> do
> this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> feeling
> of things that ought to have been done ;-)
>
> What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0
> release to
> be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
>
> So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the caveat
> of
> course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> the
> release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
>
> --
> Kelvin.
>
> On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Kelvin,
> >
> > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > bit later in the week.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> about
> > a
> > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> 1.0-incubator
> > . We
> > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> currently
> > have 33 open JIRAs.
> >
> >
> >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid
> =12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=123109
> 73&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/fie
> ld=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you and,
> if
> > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> >
> > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> really
> > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> using
> > the
> > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> next
> > one.
> > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> the
> > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > another
> > thread).
> >
> >
> > Kelvin.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
RE: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Christian Landbo Frederiksen <CL...@Ementor.dk>.
Hi
I have a couple of places where I go beyond the SDO classes and into
EMF, that I would to see included into some of the SDO utilities:
1. Upper and lower bound on properties where 'isMany' is true:
I have implemented it like this
public static int getUpperBound(Property property) {
return ((EStructuralFeature) property).getUpperBound();
}
public static int getLowerBound(Property property) {
return ((EStructuralFeature) property).getLowerBound();
}
The SDOUtil class seems a perfect place to put these.
2. The enumeration facet
I need to know whether a type has enumerated restrictions:
public static List<String> getEnumerationFacet(Type type) {
return
ExtendedMetaData.INSTANCE.getEnumerationFacet((EDataType)type);
}
3. Validation
I do validation using Diagnostic:
Diagnostic diagnostic = Diagnostician.INSTANCE.validate((EObject)
dataObject);
if (diagnostic.getSeverity() == Diagnostic.ERROR) {
.....
I haven't seen if SDO 2.1 has introduced other kind of validation of if
a funtionality is in the making...
/Chr
-----Original Message-----
From: kelvin goodson [mailto:kelvingoodson@gmail.com]
Sent: 8. juni 2007 19:02
To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
for
1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on what's
important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post soon,
but
in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
recently
out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
the
title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like to
do
this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
feeling
of things that ought to have been done ;-)
What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0
release to
be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the caveat
of
course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
the
release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
--
Kelvin.
On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kelvin,
>
> I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> appreciated.
>
> In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> bit later in the week.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
about
> a
> next release which I believe can be given the version tag
1.0-incubator
> . We
> have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
currently
> have 33 open JIRAs.
>
>
>
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid
=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=123109
73&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/fie
ld=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
>
> Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you and,
if
> possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
>
> If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
really
> good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
using
> the
> beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
next
> one.
> Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
the
> instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> another
> thread).
>
>
> Kelvin.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Amita Vadhavkar <am...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I was browsing through the SDO JIRAs and as a couple of them have to deal
with JDK versions, I tried to change from Sun JDK 1.5 to 1.4.2_10.
When I change from Sun JRE 1.5 to 1.4.2_10 and run AllTests, not only
TypeConversionTestCase fails as detailed in JIRA-1122, but total 3 failures
and 106 errors as attached here.
Is this a known issue or I am missing something else in my setup? I am
trying to get started on Tuscany SDO and would like to help with some JIRA
fixes, content...
Regards,
Amita
On 6/14/07, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/14/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/06/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip/>
> > > By the way, that reminds me that we need someone to be release manager
> > for
> > > this release. Any volunteers? If not, maybe Kelvin, you would be
> willing
> > > to do it, since you've already been doing lots of the prep work.
> >
> >
> > Yes, in the absence of anyone else taking the opportunity of doing
> this,
> > I
> > am happy to do it.
>
>
> +1, go Kelvin!
>
> ...ant
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On 6/14/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/06/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip/>
> > By the way, that reminds me that we need someone to be release manager
> for
> > this release. Any volunteers? If not, maybe Kelvin, you would be willing
> > to do it, since you've already been doing lots of the prep work.
>
>
> Yes, in the absence of anyone else taking the opportunity of doing this,
> I
> am happy to do it.
+1, go Kelvin!
...ant
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
On 12/06/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
> By the way, that reminds me that we need someone to be release manager for
> this release. Any volunteers? If not, maybe Kelvin, you would be willing
> to do it, since you've already been doing lots of the prep work.
Yes, in the absence of anyone else taking the opportunity of doing this, I
am happy to do it.
Regards, Kelvin.
Thanks,
> Frank
>
> kelvingoodson@gmail.com wrote on 06/11/2007 06:02:20 AM:
>
> > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into
> it
> > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> working
> > that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it
> is
> > that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick
> it
> > up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
> > it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular
> feature
> > is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your
> scenarios
> > that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the list,
> that
> > would be great.
> >
> > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line
> with
> > the SCA release format
> > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> alternative
> > simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a
> maven
> > build
> > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> >
> > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated
> exercising of
> > the sdo plugin and java generator
> > - more test cases
> >
> > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
> > [1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
> > placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
> > TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> > TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> > TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
> >
> > The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which
> it
> > didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
> the
> > fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the
> bandwidth to
> > cover this.
> > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm
> in
> > the process of committing it.
> >
> > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> >
> > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> > compatible with JDK 1.4
> >
> > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> > goes well.
> >
> > Regards, Kelvin.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
> >
>
> reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > [2]
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
> >
>
> reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > > generator.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again
> please.
> > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the
> fix
> > > > for
> > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
> what's
> > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > soon, but
> > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > > recently
> > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective,
> warrants
> > > > the
> > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
> to
> > > > do
> > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > > feeling
> > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > >
> > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.
> > 0release to
> > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > >
> > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel
> are
> > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> caveat
> > > > of
> > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements
> into
> > > > the
> > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223
> a
> > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun
> thinking
> > > > about
> > > > > a
> > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > . We
> > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > > currently
> > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
> >
>
> reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you
> and,
> > > > if
> > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > > really
> > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > > next
> > > > > one.
> > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to
> improve
> > > > the
> > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions
> on
> > > > > another
> > > > > thread).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Another summary --
A first release candidate was posted last Tuesday. Apart from naming issues
for the maven artifacts for the SDO API here are no show stoppers in the
comments to that release. I plan to address all of ant's points in the
next release candidate.
There's an open issue we need to resolve with ant about the SDO poms' stax
dependency declaration.
As to JIRAs, since that date some new requests have been posted the the
following are resolved in the release ..
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1110
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1436
but we don't have fixes for those yet. I don't have these in my plan at the
moment.
Comments on changes to the state of issues already known about at the time
of the last summary are inlined below
> Unresolved JIRAs with a 1.0 fix version
> ============================
>
> here's the jet of JIRAs.....
>
> TUSCANY-1408 Cannot programmatically define a SDO property matching
> to XSD element
resolved
TUSCANY-1317 Provide a way to set default XML load options to be
> used during Java deserialization
resolved
TUSCANY-1385 Duplicate namespace was serialized when SDO QName
> property value containing existing namespace
resolved
TUSCANY-1358 Exception in thread "main"
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot generate XSD since SDO Type
'item' was orginally generated from XSD. Use original XSD
resolved
TUSCANY-1350 Reorganise SDO build / distribution layout
part of release work, completed i think but holding open until sure
TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is
> not compatible with JDK 1.4
not addressed -- i may not get to this, not a blocker
TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
resolved
TUSCANY-1143 Generated code should separate metadata creation from
> registration to permit proper scoping
in progress
<snip/>
>
> TUSCANY-1293 SDO does not work with OSGi
> Bryan Hunt "For the short term, you might consider removing the
> ability to build Eclipse plug-ins (OSGi bundles) from your pom. "
> Not in plan for 1.0
>
> TUSCANY-1359 New SDOUtil: Upper and lower bound on properties where
> 'isMany' is true
> I'll apply it if a patch file with the fix and a test appear in time
>
> TUSCANY-1391 Provide capability to load and save XML with unknown
> features
> I haven't found time to review the available patch and I can't see me
> getting to it, so not currently in my plan
activity on patch -- but open questions are pending on the jira
TUSCANY-1128 Support attribute and element with same name
> It's not clear whether we are good to go here, it's not currently in
> my 1.0 plan to integrate it
>
> TUSCANY-477 SDO runtime should report unresolved types in a meaningful
> way if xsd:import/include cannot be resolved
> Not in my plan
>
> Other things pulled from this thread not covered above
> =======================================
> TUSCANY-303 Single package override in tuscany-sca-plugin and
> tuscany-sdo-plugin insufficient
> I'll include a fix if it comes along soon -- from my point of view,
> nice to have but not essential
>
> Steffen's - typesafe collections in the xsd2java generator
> No JIRA raised -- could be new feature in a future release
<snip/>
Regards, Kelvin.
>
> On 05/07/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kelvin,
> >
> > I'm going to take a run at Tuscany-1143. I've started looking into
> > this issue and hope to have something by middle to end of next week.
> > Let me know if this will work for your timetable.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > On 6/26/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'd like to take a quick roll call if possible please.
> > >
> > > Who if anyone is working on these issues? When do you think they will
> be
> > > ready by? Is anyone working on an issue not referenced in the attached
> note
> > > that they want in the 1.0 but haven't said so?
> > >
> > > I've been working on the build structure and the samples. In order to
> have
> > > any chance of being close to getting a release candidate
> through voting by
> > > mid of next month were going to need your contributions in very soon,
> > > knowing how it usually takes a few of release candidate iterations in
> > > general before a successful PMC vote. Ideally, your contributions
> > > permitting, I'd like to be in a position to build a release candidate
> in the
> > > middle part of next week.
> > >
> > > Regards, Kelvin.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/06/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump
> into it
> > > > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> > > > working that would be great. The more detail you put there, the
> more
> > > > likely it is that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would
> be likely
> > > > to pick it up; unless of course you have plans for doing it
> yourself. As
> > > > an aside, it's always interesting to know the background to why a
> > > > particular feature is important to someone, so if you felt like
> commenting
> > > > on your scenarios that would benefit from this too, whether in the
> JIRA
> > > > on or the list, that would be great.
> > > >
> > > > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > > > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in
> line with
> > > > the SCA release format
> > > > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> > > > alternative simple approach to running the samples that does not
> involve
> > > > running a maven build
> > > > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> > > >
> > > > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't
> see as
> > > > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > > > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated
> exercising
> > > > of the sdo plugin and java generator
> > > > - more test cases
> > > >
> > > > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific
> release[1], rather then
> > > > the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the placeholder for
> Jiras not
> > > > assigned to a release.
> > > > TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> > > > TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> > > > TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
> > > >
> > > > The first is there because the originator marked it for the
> beta1, which
> > > > it didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I
> changed
> > > > the fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have
> thebandwidth to cover this.
> > > > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > > > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and
> I'm in
> > > > the process of committing it.
> > > >
> > > > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through
> [2] in
> > > > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> > > >
> > > > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > > > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > > > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > > > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools
> jars
> > > > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is
> not
> > > > compatible with JDK 1.4
> > > >
> > > > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the
> above
> > > > goes well.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the
> xsd2java
> > > > > generator.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards
> > > > > Steffen
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again
> please.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with
> the fix
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment
> on
> > > > > > what's
> > > > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > > > soon, but
> > > > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have
> added
> > > > > > recently
> > > > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective,
> warrants
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd
> like
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that
> niggling
> > > > > > feeling
> > > > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO
> 1.0release to
> > > > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you
> feel are
> > > > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> > > > > > caveat of
> > > > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements
> into
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <codeapex@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in
> the
> > > > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would
> be
> > > > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So
> any
> > > > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on
> 1223 a
> > > > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun
> thinking
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > > > . We
> > > > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and
> we
> > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> > > > > > you and, if
> > > > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to
> provide a
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences
> about
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve
> the
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to
> improve
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already
> have
> > > > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release
> distributions on
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > thread).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com>.
Hi Kelvin,
I am working with Amita on T-1317 and T-1391 for SDO R1.0. I think both are very close and should be done by the end of next week (7/13).
I am also working on T-1408. According to comments from Frank B., I am planning to change creating a SDO property programmatically by creating an XSD element instead of attribute. I will update the patch file when I am ready next week.
T-1385 is complete for XMLHelper except save function for XMLStreamHelper. I will try looking into it next week too.
Fuhwei
kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote: I was aiming at a release candidate by early to mid of next week. It's
a bit later than planned. I've been hit by a hardware failure, and
have been head down on fixing up the samples. I've just been doing a
catch-up collation of the info relating to release contents.
I feel sure that there will be at least one candidate respin required,
given the significant changes in build structure, so if I get there
before you David, as TUSCANY-1143 is an important fix, we can absorb
this fix into a second candidate. We'll have to double fix it, as I
will cut a branch/tag at the time I make the first candidate.
I have reviewed 3 sources of material -- JIRAs already labelled for
the next release; JIRA activity since my last summary on June 11th and
other issues mentioned in this thread, not already covered.
Comments please .....
Unresolved JIRAs with a 1.0 fix version
============================
here's the jet of JIRAs.....
TUSCANY-1408 Cannot programmatically define a SDO property matching
to XSD element
TUSCANY-1317 Provide a way to set default XML load options to be
used during Java deserialization
TUSCANY-1385 Duplicate namespace was serialized when SDO QName
property value containing existing namespace
TUSCANY-1358 Exception in thread "main"
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot generate XSD since SDO Type
'item' was orginally generated from XSD. Use original XSD
TUSCANY-1350 Reorganise SDO build / distribution layout
TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is
not compatible with JDK 1.4
TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
TUSCANY-1143 Generated code should separate metadata creation from
registration to permit proper scoping
and here's my comments on them ....
1408 Patch avalable - hope to get to it v soon
1317 Amita/Fuhwei -- lots of activity - What's the outlook?
1385 Patch available, but comment suggests not quite ready -- is it
ready to apply?
1350 significantly progressed, may require more changes as part of
release management
257,1122 -- Java 1.4.2 tolerance -- I hope to get to these
1143, See response in this thread earlier today from David Adcox
Updated jiras since 11/6/2007 (excluding jiras covered above)
===============================================
TUSCANY-1293 SDO does not work with OSGi
Bryan Hunt "For the short term, you might consider removing the
ability to build Eclipse plug-ins (OSGi bundles) from your pom. "
Not in plan for 1.0
TUSCANY-1359 New SDOUtil: Upper and lower bound on properties where
'isMany' is true
I'll apply it if a patch file with the fix and a test appear in time
TUSCANY-1391 Provide capability to load and save XML with unknown features
I haven't found time to review the available patch and I can't see me
getting to it, so not currently in my plan
TUSCANY-1128 Support attribute and element with same name
It's not clear whether we are good to go here, it's not currently in
my 1.0 plan to integrate it
TUSCANY-477 SDO runtime should report unresolved types in a meaningful
way if xsd:import/include cannot be resolved
Not in my plan
Other things pulled from this thread not covered above
=======================================
TUSCANY-303 Single package override in tuscany-sca-plugin and
tuscany-sdo-plugin insufficient
I'll include a fix if it comes along soon -- from my point of view,
nice to have but not essential
Steffen's - typesafe collections in the xsd2java generator
No JIRA raised -- could be new feature in a future release
general things I talked about for the release (build structure,
samples, website, generator testing)
- build structure is mostly done
- samples are significantly changed, i have more to do but will round off soon
- website can be done while release candidates are being reviewed
- generator testing is a nice to have that I don't think I'll get the
time to address
TUSCANY-1127 and 1288 are resolved
Making a merged sdo-all jar. I think the issues raised by Fuhwei, in
particular the requirement to merge the contents of similarly named
files in the EMF artifacts make this a non-starter for this release.
Regards, Kelvin.
On 05/07/07, David Adcox wrote:
> Kelvin,
>
> I'm going to take a run at Tuscany-1143. I've started looking into
> this issue and hope to have something by middle to end of next week.
> Let me know if this will work for your timetable.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 6/26/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
> > I'd like to take a quick roll call if possible please.
> >
> > Who if anyone is working on these issues? When do you think they will be
> > ready by? Is anyone working on an issue not referenced in the attached note
> > that they want in the 1.0 but haven't said so?
> >
> > I've been working on the build structure and the samples. In order to have
> > any chance of being close to getting a release candidate through voting by
> > mid of next month were going to need your contributions in very soon,
> > knowing how it usually takes a few of release candidate iterations in
> > general before a successful PMC vote. Ideally, your contributions
> > permitting, I'd like to be in a position to build a release candidate in the
> > middle part of next week.
> >
> > Regards, Kelvin.
> >
> >
> > On 11/06/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
> > >
> > > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
> > > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> > > working that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more
> > > likely it is that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely
> > > to pick it up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As
> > > an aside, it's always interesting to know the background to why a
> > > particular feature is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting
> > > on your scenarios that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA
> > > on or the list, that would be great.
> > >
> > > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
> > > the SCA release format
> > > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> > > alternative simple approach to running the samples that does not involve
> > > running a maven build
> > > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> > >
> > > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> > > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated exercising
> > > of the sdo plugin and java generator
> > > - more test cases
> > >
> > > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release[1], rather then
> > > the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the placeholder for Jiras not
> > > assigned to a release.
> > > TUSCANY-1317 ,
> > > TUSCANY-1143 ,
> > > TUSCANY-513
> > >
> > > The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which
> > > it didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
> > > the fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have thebandwidth to cover this.
> > > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm in
> > > the process of committing it.
> > >
> > > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> > > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> > >
> > > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> > > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> > > compatible with JDK 1.4
> > >
> > > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> > > goes well.
> > >
> > > Regards, Kelvin.
> > >
> > > [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > > > generator.
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> > > > > for
> > > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
> > > > > what's
> > > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > > soon, but
> > > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > > > recently
> > > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> > > > > the
> > > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
> > > > > to do
> > > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > > > feeling
> > > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0release to
> > > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > > >
> > > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> > > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> > > > > caveat of
> > > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> > > > > the
> > > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> > > > > about
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > > . We
> > > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > > > currently
> > > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> > > > > you and, if
> > > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > > > really
> > > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > > > using
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > > > next
> > > > > > one.
> > > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> > > > > the
> > > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > thread).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Another summary --
A first release candidate was posted last Tuesday. Apart from naming issues
for the maven artifacts for the SDO API here are no show stoppers in the
comments to that release. I plan to address all of ant's points in the
next release candidate.
There's an open issue we need to resolve with ant about the SDO poms' stax
dependency declaration.
As to JIRAs, since that date some new requests have been posted the the
following are resolved in the release ..
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1110
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1436
but we don't have fixes for those yet. I don't have these in my plan at the
moment.
Comments on changes to the state of issues already known about at the time
of the last summary are inlined below
> Unresolved JIRAs with a 1.0 fix version
> ============================
>
> here's the jet of JIRAs.....
>
> TUSCANY-1408 Cannot programmatically define a SDO property matching
> to XSD element
resolved
TUSCANY-1317 Provide a way to set default XML load options to be
> used during Java deserialization
resolved
TUSCANY-1385 Duplicate namespace was serialized when SDO QName
> property value containing existing namespace
resolved
TUSCANY-1358 Exception in thread "main"
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot generate XSD since SDO Type
'item' was orginally generated from XSD. Use original XSD
resolved
TUSCANY-1350 Reorganise SDO build / distribution layout
part of release work, completed i think but holding open until sure
TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is
> not compatible with JDK 1.4
not addressed -- i may not get to this, not a blocker
TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
resolved
TUSCANY-1143 Generated code should separate metadata creation from
> registration to permit proper scoping
in progress
<snip/>
>
> TUSCANY-1293 SDO does not work with OSGi
> Bryan Hunt "For the short term, you might consider removing the
> ability to build Eclipse plug-ins (OSGi bundles) from your pom. "
> Not in plan for 1.0
>
> TUSCANY-1359 New SDOUtil: Upper and lower bound on properties where
> 'isMany' is true
> I'll apply it if a patch file with the fix and a test appear in time
>
> TUSCANY-1391 Provide capability to load and save XML with unknown
> features
> I haven't found time to review the available patch and I can't see me
> getting to it, so not currently in my plan
activity on patch -- but open questions are pending on the jira
TUSCANY-1128 Support attribute and element with same name
> It's not clear whether we are good to go here, it's not currently in
> my 1.0 plan to integrate it
>
> TUSCANY-477 SDO runtime should report unresolved types in a meaningful
> way if xsd:import/include cannot be resolved
> Not in my plan
>
> Other things pulled from this thread not covered above
> =======================================
> TUSCANY-303 Single package override in tuscany-sca-plugin and
> tuscany-sdo-plugin insufficient
> I'll include a fix if it comes along soon -- from my point of view,
> nice to have but not essential
>
> Steffen's - typesafe collections in the xsd2java generator
> No JIRA raised -- could be new feature in a future release
<snip/>
Regards, Kelvin.
>
> On 05/07/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kelvin,
> >
> > I'm going to take a run at Tuscany-1143. I've started looking into
> > this issue and hope to have something by middle to end of next week.
> > Let me know if this will work for your timetable.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > On 6/26/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'd like to take a quick roll call if possible please.
> > >
> > > Who if anyone is working on these issues? When do you think they will
> be
> > > ready by? Is anyone working on an issue not referenced in the attached
> note
> > > that they want in the 1.0 but haven't said so?
> > >
> > > I've been working on the build structure and the samples. In order to
> have
> > > any chance of being close to getting a release candidate
> through voting by
> > > mid of next month were going to need your contributions in very soon,
> > > knowing how it usually takes a few of release candidate iterations in
> > > general before a successful PMC vote. Ideally, your contributions
> > > permitting, I'd like to be in a position to build a release candidate
> in the
> > > middle part of next week.
> > >
> > > Regards, Kelvin.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/06/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump
> into it
> > > > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> > > > working that would be great. The more detail you put there, the
> more
> > > > likely it is that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would
> be likely
> > > > to pick it up; unless of course you have plans for doing it
> yourself. As
> > > > an aside, it's always interesting to know the background to why a
> > > > particular feature is important to someone, so if you felt like
> commenting
> > > > on your scenarios that would benefit from this too, whether in the
> JIRA
> > > > on or the list, that would be great.
> > > >
> > > > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > > > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in
> line with
> > > > the SCA release format
> > > > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> > > > alternative simple approach to running the samples that does not
> involve
> > > > running a maven build
> > > > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> > > >
> > > > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't
> see as
> > > > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > > > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated
> exercising
> > > > of the sdo plugin and java generator
> > > > - more test cases
> > > >
> > > > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific
> release[1], rather then
> > > > the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the placeholder for
> Jiras not
> > > > assigned to a release.
> > > > TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> > > > TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> > > > TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
> > > >
> > > > The first is there because the originator marked it for the
> beta1, which
> > > > it didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I
> changed
> > > > the fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have
> thebandwidth to cover this.
> > > > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > > > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and
> I'm in
> > > > the process of committing it.
> > > >
> > > > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through
> [2] in
> > > > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> > > >
> > > > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > > > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > > > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > > > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools
> jars
> > > > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is
> not
> > > > compatible with JDK 1.4
> > > >
> > > > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the
> above
> > > > goes well.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the
> xsd2java
> > > > > generator.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards
> > > > > Steffen
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again
> please.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with
> the fix
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment
> on
> > > > > > what's
> > > > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > > > soon, but
> > > > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have
> added
> > > > > > recently
> > > > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective,
> warrants
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd
> like
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that
> niggling
> > > > > > feeling
> > > > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO
> 1.0release to
> > > > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you
> feel are
> > > > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> > > > > > caveat of
> > > > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements
> into
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <codeapex@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in
> the
> > > > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would
> be
> > > > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So
> any
> > > > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on
> 1223 a
> > > > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun
> thinking
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > > > . We
> > > > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and
> we
> > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> > > > > > you and, if
> > > > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to
> provide a
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences
> about
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve
> the
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to
> improve
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already
> have
> > > > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release
> distributions on
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > thread).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk>.
I was aiming at a release candidate by early to mid of next week. It's
a bit later than planned. I've been hit by a hardware failure, and
have been head down on fixing up the samples. I've just been doing a
catch-up collation of the info relating to release contents.
I feel sure that there will be at least one candidate respin required,
given the significant changes in build structure, so if I get there
before you David, as TUSCANY-1143 is an important fix, we can absorb
this fix into a second candidate. We'll have to double fix it, as I
will cut a branch/tag at the time I make the first candidate.
I have reviewed 3 sources of material -- JIRAs already labelled for
the next release; JIRA activity since my last summary on June 11th and
other issues mentioned in this thread, not already covered.
Comments please .....
Unresolved JIRAs with a 1.0 fix version
============================
here's the jet of JIRAs.....
TUSCANY-1408 Cannot programmatically define a SDO property matching
to XSD element
TUSCANY-1317 Provide a way to set default XML load options to be
used during Java deserialization
TUSCANY-1385 Duplicate namespace was serialized when SDO QName
property value containing existing namespace
TUSCANY-1358 Exception in thread "main"
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot generate XSD since SDO Type
'item' was orginally generated from XSD. Use original XSD
TUSCANY-1350 Reorganise SDO build / distribution layout
TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is
not compatible with JDK 1.4
TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
TUSCANY-1143 Generated code should separate metadata creation from
registration to permit proper scoping
and here's my comments on them ....
1408 Patch avalable - hope to get to it v soon
1317 Amita/Fuhwei -- lots of activity - What's the outlook?
1385 Patch available, but comment suggests not quite ready -- is it
ready to apply?
1350 significantly progressed, may require more changes as part of
release management
257,1122 -- Java 1.4.2 tolerance -- I hope to get to these
1143, See response in this thread earlier today from David Adcox
Updated jiras since 11/6/2007 (excluding jiras covered above)
===============================================
TUSCANY-1293 SDO does not work with OSGi
Bryan Hunt "For the short term, you might consider removing the
ability to build Eclipse plug-ins (OSGi bundles) from your pom. "
Not in plan for 1.0
TUSCANY-1359 New SDOUtil: Upper and lower bound on properties where
'isMany' is true
I'll apply it if a patch file with the fix and a test appear in time
TUSCANY-1391 Provide capability to load and save XML with unknown features
I haven't found time to review the available patch and I can't see me
getting to it, so not currently in my plan
TUSCANY-1128 Support attribute and element with same name
It's not clear whether we are good to go here, it's not currently in
my 1.0 plan to integrate it
TUSCANY-477 SDO runtime should report unresolved types in a meaningful
way if xsd:import/include cannot be resolved
Not in my plan
Other things pulled from this thread not covered above
=======================================
TUSCANY-303 Single package override in tuscany-sca-plugin and
tuscany-sdo-plugin insufficient
I'll include a fix if it comes along soon -- from my point of view,
nice to have but not essential
Steffen's - typesafe collections in the xsd2java generator
No JIRA raised -- could be new feature in a future release
general things I talked about for the release (build structure,
samples, website, generator testing)
- build structure is mostly done
- samples are significantly changed, i have more to do but will round off soon
- website can be done while release candidates are being reviewed
- generator testing is a nice to have that I don't think I'll get the
time to address
TUSCANY-1127 and 1288 are resolved
Making a merged sdo-all jar. I think the issues raised by Fuhwei, in
particular the requirement to merge the contents of similarly named
files in the EMF artifacts make this a non-starter for this release.
Regards, Kelvin.
On 05/07/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kelvin,
>
> I'm going to take a run at Tuscany-1143. I've started looking into
> this issue and hope to have something by middle to end of next week.
> Let me know if this will work for your timetable.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 6/26/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to take a quick roll call if possible please.
> >
> > Who if anyone is working on these issues? When do you think they will be
> > ready by? Is anyone working on an issue not referenced in the attached note
> > that they want in the 1.0 but haven't said so?
> >
> > I've been working on the build structure and the samples. In order to have
> > any chance of being close to getting a release candidate through voting by
> > mid of next month were going to need your contributions in very soon,
> > knowing how it usually takes a few of release candidate iterations in
> > general before a successful PMC vote. Ideally, your contributions
> > permitting, I'd like to be in a position to build a release candidate in the
> > middle part of next week.
> >
> > Regards, Kelvin.
> >
> >
> > On 11/06/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
> > > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> > > working that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more
> > > likely it is that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely
> > > to pick it up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As
> > > an aside, it's always interesting to know the background to why a
> > > particular feature is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting
> > > on your scenarios that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA
> > > on or the list, that would be great.
> > >
> > > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
> > > the SCA release format
> > > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> > > alternative simple approach to running the samples that does not involve
> > > running a maven build
> > > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> > >
> > > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> > > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated exercising
> > > of the sdo plugin and java generator
> > > - more test cases
> > >
> > > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release[1], rather then
> > > the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the placeholder for Jiras not
> > > assigned to a release.
> > > TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> > > TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> > > TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
> > >
> > > The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which
> > > it didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
> > > the fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have thebandwidth to cover this.
> > > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm in
> > > the process of committing it.
> > >
> > > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> > > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> > >
> > > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> > > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> > > compatible with JDK 1.4
> > >
> > > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> > > goes well.
> > >
> > > Regards, Kelvin.
> > >
> > > [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > > > generator.
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> > > > > for
> > > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
> > > > > what's
> > > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > > soon, but
> > > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > > > recently
> > > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> > > > > the
> > > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
> > > > > to do
> > > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > > > feeling
> > > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0release to
> > > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > > >
> > > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> > > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> > > > > caveat of
> > > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> > > > > the
> > > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <codeapex@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> > > > > about
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > > . We
> > > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > > > currently
> > > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> > > > > you and, if
> > > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > > > really
> > > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > > > using
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > > > next
> > > > > > one.
> > > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> > > > > the
> > > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > thread).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by David Adcox <co...@gmail.com>.
Kelvin,
I'm going to take a run at Tuscany-1143. I've started looking into
this issue and hope to have something by middle to end of next week.
Let me know if this will work for your timetable.
Thanks,
David
On 6/26/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to take a quick roll call if possible please.
>
> Who if anyone is working on these issues? When do you think they will be
> ready by? Is anyone working on an issue not referenced in the attached note
> that they want in the 1.0 but haven't said so?
>
> I've been working on the build structure and the samples. In order to have
> any chance of being close to getting a release candidate through voting by
> mid of next month were going to need your contributions in very soon,
> knowing how it usually takes a few of release candidate iterations in
> general before a successful PMC vote. Ideally, your contributions
> permitting, I'd like to be in a position to build a release candidate in the
> middle part of next week.
>
> Regards, Kelvin.
>
>
> On 11/06/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
> > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> > working that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more
> > likely it is that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely
> > to pick it up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As
> > an aside, it's always interesting to know the background to why a
> > particular feature is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting
> > on your scenarios that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA
> > on or the list, that would be great.
> >
> > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
> > the SCA release format
> > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> > alternative simple approach to running the samples that does not involve
> > running a maven build
> > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> >
> > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated exercising
> > of the sdo plugin and java generator
> > - more test cases
> >
> > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release[1], rather then
> > the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the placeholder for Jiras not
> > assigned to a release.
> > TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> > TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> > TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
> >
> > The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which
> > it didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
> > the fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have thebandwidth to cover this.
> > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm in
> > the process of committing it.
> >
> > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> >
> > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> > compatible with JDK 1.4
> >
> > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> > goes well.
> >
> > Regards, Kelvin.
> >
> > [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> >
> > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > > generator.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> > > > for
> > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
> > > > what's
> > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > soon, but
> > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > > recently
> > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> > > > the
> > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
> > > > to do
> > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > > feeling
> > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > >
> > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0release to
> > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > >
> > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> > > > caveat of
> > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> > > > the
> > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <codeapex@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> > > > about
> > > > > a
> > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > . We
> > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > > currently
> > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> > > > you and, if
> > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > > really
> > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > > next
> > > > > one.
> > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> > > > the
> > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > > > > another
> > > > > thread).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
I'd like to take a quick roll call if possible please.
Who if anyone is working on these issues? When do you think they will be
ready by? Is anyone working on an issue not referenced in the attached note
that they want in the 1.0 but haven't said so?
I've been working on the build structure and the samples. In order to have
any chance of being close to getting a release candidate through voting by
mid of next month were going to need your contributions in very soon,
knowing how it usually takes a few of release candidate iterations in
general before a successful PMC vote. Ideally, your contributions
permitting, I'd like to be in a position to build a release candidate in the
middle part of next week.
Regards, Kelvin.
On 11/06/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
> any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> working that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more
> likely it is that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely
> to pick it up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As
> an aside, it's always interesting to know the background to why a
> particular feature is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting
> on your scenarios that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA
> on or the list, that would be great.
>
> For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
> the SCA release format
> - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> alternative simple approach to running the samples that does not involve
> running a maven build
> - review and improvement of the website documentation
>
> In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated exercising
> of the sdo plugin and java generator
> - more test cases
>
> In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release[1], rather then
> the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the placeholder for Jiras not
> assigned to a release.
> TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
>
> The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which
> it didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
> the fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have thebandwidth to cover this.
> The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm in
> the process of committing it.
>
> In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
>
> TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> compatible with JDK 1.4
>
> and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> goes well.
>
> Regards, Kelvin.
>
> [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
> [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
>
> On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > generator.
> >
> > regards
> > Steffen
> >
> > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> > >
> > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> > > for
> > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
> > > what's
> > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > soon, but
> > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > recently
> > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> > > the
> > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
> > > to do
> > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > feeling
> > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > >
> > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0release to
> > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > >
> > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> > > caveat of
> > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> > > the
> > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <codeapex@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > > > bit later in the week.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> > > about
> > > > a
> > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > . We
> > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > currently
> > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> > > you and, if
> > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > >
> > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > really
> > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > using
> > > > the
> > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > next
> > > > one.
> > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> > > the
> > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > > > another
> > > > thread).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
There's two main benefits of I see of having an sdo-complete jar - its much
easier for users and it would avoid emf version problems. I'm more
interested in the ease of use aspects. For example, having a proper Axis2
SDO databinding has come a several times, if we had that it would be much
easier to say:
- drop the sdo-complete.jar onto your classpath and then run WSDL2Java using
the parameter "-d sdo"
instead of:
- drop the sdo-api.jar, tuscany-sdo-impl.jar, tuscany-sdo-tools.jar,
codegen-2.2.2.jar, codegen-ecore-2.2.2.jar, common-2.2.2.jar,
ecore-2.2.2.jar, ecore-change-2.2.2.jar, ecore-xmi-2.2.2.jar,
xsd-2.2.2.jaronto your classpath and then run WSDL2Java using the
parameter "-d sdo".
make sure you using the correct 2.2.2 version of all those jars and not some
other emf jars you happen to already have as otherwise it wont work and no i
can't give a precise reliable url to where to download those jars from
sorry.
...ant
On 6/14/07, Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com> wrote:
>
> I like to share some pain I have in the past by embedding EMF.
>
> 1. Runtime problem - EMF has several OSGi bundles containing some
> initialization and resource files with the same names. Once we lump all the
> bundles together, we need to merge all content otherwise we will run into
> some runtime problems.
>
> 2. Support problem - After we refactor EMF, it's hard to get support from
> EMF team because we don't know the problem is from the code we merged or
> original EMF code. Once EMF team knew their code has been touched, they
> would no longer support us not mentioning legal complication by changing EMF
> code.
>
> That's why I asked whether there is any compelling benefit by refactoring
> EMF.
>
> Fuhwei
>
> Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com> wrote: I may have missed the reasoning
> behind refactoring EMF's package name to org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.*. Can
> anyone tell me the benefit by doing that? Thanks.
>
> Fuhwei
>
> ant elder wrote: I guess there's various ways it could be done, i was
> thinking of an
> sdo-complete jar containing all the sdo classes (org.apache.tuscany.sdo.**
> )
> and all the emf classes renamed from org.eclipse.emf.** to be
> org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.**.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 6/13/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
> >
> > Ant, this all sounds good,
> > +1 to the spec project move,
> > and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can
> >
> > but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your
> response
> > to Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean
> by
> > renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there
> please?
> >
> >
> > Kelvin
> >
> > On 13/06/07, ant elder wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ant,
> > > >
> > > > You said this:
> > > >
> > > > > While building that it could also rename the
> > > > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
> > > > problems
> > > > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code.
> > > >
> > > > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly
> > > > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse
> > > and
> > > > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this
> > > is
> > > > allowed?
> > >
> > >
> > > Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as
> they
> > > are
> > > "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in
> > > the
> > > EPL that prevents us doing this.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com>.
I like to share some pain I have in the past by embedding EMF.
1. Runtime problem - EMF has several OSGi bundles containing some initialization and resource files with the same names. Once we lump all the bundles together, we need to merge all content otherwise we will run into some runtime problems.
2. Support problem - After we refactor EMF, it's hard to get support from EMF team because we don't know the problem is from the code we merged or original EMF code. Once EMF team knew their code has been touched, they would no longer support us not mentioning legal complication by changing EMF code.
That's why I asked whether there is any compelling benefit by refactoring EMF.
Fuhwei
Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com> wrote: I may have missed the reasoning behind refactoring EMF's package name to org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.*. Can anyone tell me the benefit by doing that? Thanks.
Fuhwei
ant elder wrote: I guess there's various ways it could be done, i was thinking of an
sdo-complete jar containing all the sdo classes (org.apache.tuscany.sdo.**)
and all the emf classes renamed from org.eclipse.emf.** to be
org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.**.
...ant
On 6/13/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
>
> Ant, this all sounds good,
> +1 to the spec project move,
> and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can
>
> but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your response
> to Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean by
> renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there please?
>
>
> Kelvin
>
> On 13/06/07, ant elder wrote:
> >
> > On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Ant,
> > >
> > > You said this:
> > >
> > > > While building that it could also rename the
> > > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
> > > problems
> > > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code.
> > >
> > > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly
> > > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse
> > and
> > > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this
> > is
> > > allowed?
> >
> >
> > Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they
> > are
> > "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in
> > the
> > EPL that prevents us doing this.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com>.
I may have missed the reasoning behind refactoring EMF's package name to org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.*. Can anyone tell me the benefit by doing that? Thanks.
Fuhwei
ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote: I guess there's various ways it could be done, i was thinking of an
sdo-complete jar containing all the sdo classes (org.apache.tuscany.sdo.**)
and all the emf classes renamed from org.eclipse.emf.** to be
org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.**.
...ant
On 6/13/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
>
> Ant, this all sounds good,
> +1 to the spec project move,
> and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can
>
> but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your response
> to Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean by
> renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there please?
>
>
> Kelvin
>
> On 13/06/07, ant elder wrote:
> >
> > On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Ant,
> > >
> > > You said this:
> > >
> > > > While building that it could also rename the
> > > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
> > > problems
> > > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code.
> > >
> > > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly
> > > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse
> > and
> > > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this
> > is
> > > allowed?
> >
> >
> > Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they
> > are
> > "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in
> > the
> > EPL that prevents us doing this.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
I guess there's various ways it could be done, i was thinking of an
sdo-complete jar containing all the sdo classes (org.apache.tuscany.sdo.**)
and all the emf classes renamed from org.eclipse.emf.** to be
org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.**.
...ant
On 6/13/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ant, this all sounds good,
> +1 to the spec project move,
> and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can
>
> but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your response
> to Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean by
> renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there please?
>
>
> Kelvin
>
> On 13/06/07, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ant,
> > >
> > > You said this:
> > >
> > > > While building that it could also rename the
> > > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
> > > problems
> > > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code.
> > >
> > > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly
> > > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse
> > and
> > > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this
> > is
> > > allowed?
> >
> >
> > Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they
> > are
> > "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in
> > the
> > EPL that prevents us doing this.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Ant, this all sounds good,
+1 to the spec project move,
and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can
but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your response to
Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean by
renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there please?
Kelvin
On 13/06/07, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ant,
> >
> > You said this:
> >
> > > While building that it could also rename the
> > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
> > problems
> > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code.
> >
> > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly
> > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse and
> > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this is
> > allowed?
>
>
> Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they
> are
> "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in the
> EPL that prevents us doing this.
>
> ...ant
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Ant,
>
> You said this:
>
> > While building that it could also rename the
> > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
> problems
> > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code.
>
> We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly
> eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse and
> Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this is
> allowed?
Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they are
"Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in the
EPL that prevents us doing this.
...ant
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Ant,
You said this:
> While building that it could also rename the
> emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
problems
> when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code.
We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly
eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse and
Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this is
allowed?
Thanks,
Frank
ant.elder@gmail.com wrote on 06/13/2007 08:54:23 AM:
> On 6/11/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump
into it
> > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> > working
> > that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely
it is
> > that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to
pick it
> > up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an
aside,
> > it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular
feature
> > is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your
scenarios
> > that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the
> > list, that
> > would be great.
> >
> > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line
with
> > the SCA release format
>
>
> One thing we should do for this right now is move spec/sdo-api from the
> Tuscany SVN trunk top-level folder into the sdo folder, so sdo/sdo-api.
>
> Another thing i'd wondered about was making an sdo jar that contained
all
> the emf dependencies to simplify things for users. So that would be
> something like all the codegen, ecore, xsd and tuscany-sdo-* jars
merged
> into a single sdo-complete.jar. While building that it could also rename
the
> emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version
problems
> when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code. Does anyone else think
this
> would be useful?
>
> ...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On 6/11/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
> any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> working
> that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it is
> that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick it
> up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
> it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular feature
> is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your scenarios
> that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the
> list, that
> would be great.
>
> For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
> the SCA release format
One thing we should do for this right now is move spec/sdo-api from the
Tuscany SVN trunk top-level folder into the sdo folder, so sdo/sdo-api.
Another thing i'd wondered about was making an sdo jar that contained all
the emf dependencies to simplify things for users. So that would be
something like all the codegen, ecore, xsd and tuscany-sdo-* jars merged
into a single sdo-complete.jar. While building that it could also rename the
emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version problems
when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code. Does anyone else think this
would be useful?
...ant
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com>.
Hi Kelvin,
You may want to consider the followings -
1429 - Without the fix, SDO R1.0 is completely broken when using the default helper context
1391 - Load/save XML with unknown features. The fix simply utilized EMF's existing option to handle malformed XML documents.
Fuhwei
kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote: Raymond added a comment to the RC1 thread [1] expressing a wish that a
couple of jiras be fixed in this release.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-user@ws.apache.org/msg01352.html
On 13/07/07, David Adcox wrote:
>
> Kelvin,
>
> I'm a bit late adding this to the pile, but I'd like to see that
> T-1428 is included in the 1.0 release. The changes are somewhat small
> and making the change now will reduce headaches down the road.
>
> On 6/11/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
> > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into
> it
> > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> working
> > that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it
> is
> > that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick
> it
> > up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
> > it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular
> feature
> > is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your
> scenarios
> > that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the
> list, that
> > would be great.
> >
> > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line
> with
> > the SCA release format
> > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> alternative
> > simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a
> maven
> > build
> > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> >
> > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated
> exercising of
> > the sdo plugin and java generator
> > - more test cases
> >
> > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
> > [1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
> > placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
> > TUSCANY-1317 ,
> > TUSCANY-1143 ,
> > TUSCANY-513
> >
> > The first is there because the originator marked it for the
> beta1, which it
> > didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
> the
> > fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the
> bandwidth to
> > cover this.
> > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm
> in
> > the process of committing it.
> >
> > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> >
> > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> > compatible with JDK 1.4
> >
> > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> > goes well.
> >
> > Regards, Kelvin.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > [2]
> >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb wrote:
> > >
> > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > > generator.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again
> please.
> > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the
> fix
> > > > for
> > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
> what's
> > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > soon, but
> > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > > recently
> > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective,
> warrants
> > > > the
> > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
> to
> > > > do
> > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > > feeling
> > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > >
> > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO
> 1.0release to
> > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > >
> > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel
> are
> > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> caveat
> > > > of
> > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements
> into
> > > > the
> > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223
> a
> > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun
> thinking
> > > > about
> > > > > a
> > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > . We
> > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > > currently
> > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> you and,
> > > > if
> > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > > really
> > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > > next
> > > > > one.
> > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to
> improve
> > > > the
> > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions
> on
> > > > > another
> > > > > thread).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Raymond added a comment to the RC1 thread [1] expressing a wish that a
couple of jiras be fixed in this release.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-user@ws.apache.org/msg01352.html
On 13/07/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kelvin,
>
> I'm a bit late adding this to the pile, but I'd like to see that
> T-1428 is included in the 1.0 release. The changes are somewhat small
> and making the change now will reduce headaches down the road.
>
> On 6/11/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
> > Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into
> it
> > any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
> working
> > that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it
> is
> > that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick
> it
> > up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
> > it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular
> feature
> > is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your
> scenarios
> > that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the
> list, that
> > would be great.
> >
> > For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> > - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line
> with
> > the SCA release format
> > - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
> alternative
> > simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a
> maven
> > build
> > - review and improvement of the website documentation
> >
> > In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> > absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> > - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated
> exercising of
> > the sdo plugin and java generator
> > - more test cases
> >
> > In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
> > [1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
> > placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
> > TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> > TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> > TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
> >
> > The first is there because the originator marked it for the
> beta1, which it
> > didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
> the
> > fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the
> bandwidth to
> > cover this.
> > The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> > The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm
> in
> > the process of committing it.
> >
> > In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> > addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
> >
> > TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> > TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> > incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> > TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> > TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> > compatible with JDK 1.4
> >
> > and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> > goes well.
> >
> > Regards, Kelvin.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> > [2]
> >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > > generator.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again
> please.
> > > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the
> fix
> > > > for
> > > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
> what's
> > > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > > soon, but
> > > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > > recently
> > > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective,
> warrants
> > > > the
> > > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
> to
> > > > do
> > > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > > feeling
> > > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > > >
> > > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO
> 1.0release to
> > > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > > >
> > > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel
> are
> > > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
> caveat
> > > > of
> > > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements
> into
> > > > the
> > > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > > appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223
> a
> > > > > bit later in the week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun
> thinking
> > > > about
> > > > > a
> > > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > > . We
> > > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > > currently
> > > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to
> you and,
> > > > if
> > > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > > really
> > > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > > next
> > > > > one.
> > > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to
> improve
> > > > the
> > > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions
> on
> > > > > another
> > > > > thread).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelvin.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by David Adcox <co...@gmail.com>.
Kelvin,
I'm a bit late adding this to the pile, but I'd like to see that
T-1428 is included in the 1.0 release. The changes are somewhat small
and making the change now will reduce headaches down the road.
On 6/11/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
> Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
> any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this working
> that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it is
> that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick it
> up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
> it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular feature
> is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your scenarios
> that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the list, that
> would be great.
>
> For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
> the SCA release format
> - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an alternative
> simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a maven
> build
> - review and improvement of the website documentation
>
> In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated exercising of
> the sdo plugin and java generator
> - more test cases
>
> In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
> [1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
> placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
> TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
>
> The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which it
> didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed the
> fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the bandwidth to
> cover this.
> The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm in
> the process of committing it.
>
> In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
>
> TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> compatible with JDK 1.4
>
> and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> goes well.
>
> Regards, Kelvin.
>
> [1]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> [2]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
> On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > generator.
> >
> > regards
> > Steffen
> >
> > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> > > for
> > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on what's
> > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > soon, but
> > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > recently
> > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> > > the
> > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like to
> > > do
> > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > feeling
> > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > >
> > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0release to
> > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > >
> > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the caveat
> > > of
> > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> > > the
> > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > > > bit later in the week.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> > > about
> > > > a
> > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > . We
> > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > currently
> > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you and,
> > > if
> > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > >
> > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > really
> > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > using
> > > > the
> > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > next
> > > > one.
> > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> > > the
> > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > > > another
> > > > thread).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
This sounds good to me. I assume Christian's suggestion for additional
SDOUtil methods, and Bert/Steffen's request for notification support, are
two more candidates for 1.0.
Christian and Bert/Steffen, are you planning to open JIRAs for those?
I'm worried about how many things are really doable, given the target we
have in mind for the release (next month). Are people going to help with
these features by providing patches? If not, is delaying the release for
another month or two acceptable? Personally, I'd like to stick with a July
target for the release. If somebody wants a feature that we can't handle
in time, they'll need to help implement it. Otherwise it slips to the next
release. What do others think?
By the way, that reminds me that we need someone to be release manager for
this release. Any volunteers? If not, maybe Kelvin, you would be willing
to do it, since you've already been doing lots of the prep work.
Thanks,
Frank
kelvingoodson@gmail.com wrote on 06/11/2007 06:02:20 AM:
> Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into
it
> any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
working
> that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it
is
> that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick
it
> up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
> it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular
feature
> is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your
scenarios
> that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the list,
that
> would be great.
>
> For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line
with
> the SCA release format
> - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
alternative
> simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a
maven
> build
> - review and improvement of the website documentation
>
> In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated
exercising of
> the sdo plugin and java generator
> - more test cases
>
> In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
> [1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
> placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
> TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
>
> The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which
it
> didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
the
> fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the
bandwidth to
> cover this.
> The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm
in
> the process of committing it.
>
> In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
>
> TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> compatible with JDK 1.4
>
> and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> goes well.
>
> Regards, Kelvin.
>
> [1]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>
reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> [2]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>
reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
> On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > generator.
> >
> > regards
> > Steffen
> >
> > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again
please.
> > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the
fix
> > > for
> > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
what's
> > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > soon, but
> > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > recently
> > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective,
warrants
> > > the
> > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
to
> > > do
> > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > feeling
> > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > >
> > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.
> 0release to
> > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > >
> > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel
are
> > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
caveat
> > > of
> > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements
into
> > > the
> > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223
a
> > > > bit later in the week.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun
thinking
> > > about
> > > > a
> > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > . We
> > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > currently
> > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>
reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you
and,
> > > if
> > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > >
> > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > really
> > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > using
> > > > the
> > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > next
> > > > one.
> > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to
improve
> > > the
> > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions
on
> > > > another
> > > > thread).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
This sounds good to me. I assume Christian's suggestion for additional
SDOUtil methods, and Bert/Steffen's request for notification support, are
two more candidates for 1.0.
Christian and Bert/Steffen, are you planning to open JIRAs for those?
I'm worried about how many things are really doable, given the target we
have in mind for the release (next month). Are people going to help with
these features by providing patches? If not, is delaying the release for
another month or two acceptable? Personally, I'd like to stick with a July
target for the release. If somebody wants a feature that we can't handle
in time, they'll need to help implement it. Otherwise it slips to the next
release. What do others think?
By the way, that reminds me that we need someone to be release manager for
this release. Any volunteers? If not, maybe Kelvin, you would be willing
to do it, since you've already been doing lots of the prep work.
Thanks,
Frank
kelvingoodson@gmail.com wrote on 06/11/2007 06:02:20 AM:
> Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into
it
> any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this
working
> that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it
is
> that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick
it
> up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
> it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular
feature
> is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your
scenarios
> that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the list,
that
> would be great.
>
> For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
> - reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line
with
> the SCA release format
> - review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an
alternative
> simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a
maven
> build
> - review and improvement of the website documentation
>
> In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
> absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
> - creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated
exercising of
> the sdo plugin and java generator
> - more test cases
>
> In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
> [1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
> placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
> TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
> TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
> TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
>
> The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which
it
> didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed
the
> fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the
bandwidth to
> cover this.
> The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
> The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm
in
> the process of committing it.
>
> In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
> addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
>
> TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
> TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
> incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
> TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
> TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
> compatible with JDK 1.4
>
> and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
> goes well.
>
> Regards, Kelvin.
>
> [1]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>
reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
> [2]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>
reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
> On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> > generator.
> >
> > regards
> > Steffen
> >
> > On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again
please.
> > > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the
fix
> > > for
> > > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on
what's
> > > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > > soon, but
> > > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > > recently
> > > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective,
warrants
> > > the
> > > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like
to
> > > do
> > > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > > feeling
> > > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> > >
> > > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.
> 0release to
> > > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> > >
> > > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel
are
> > > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the
caveat
> > > of
> > > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements
into
> > > the
> > > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > > appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223
a
> > > > bit later in the week.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun
thinking
> > > about
> > > > a
> > > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > > 1.0-incubator
> > > > . We
> > > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > > currently
> > > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>
reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you
and,
> > > if
> > > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > > >
> > > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > > really
> > > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > > using
> > > > the
> > > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > > next
> > > > one.
> > > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to
improve
> > > the
> > > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions
on
> > > > another
> > > > thread).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk>.
Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this working
that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it is
that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick it
up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular feature
is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your scenarios
that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the list, that
would be great.
For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
- reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
the SCA release format
- review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an alternative
simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a maven
build
- review and improvement of the website documentation
In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
- creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated exercising of
the sdo plugin and java generator
- more test cases
In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
[1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which it
didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed the
fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the bandwidth to
cover this.
The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm in
the process of committing it.
In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
compatible with JDK 1.4
and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
goes well.
Regards, Kelvin.
[1]
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
[2]
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> generator.
>
> regards
> Steffen
>
> On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> > for
> > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on what's
> > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > soon, but
> > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > recently
> > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> > the
> > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like to
> > do
> > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > feeling
> > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> >
> > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0release to
> > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> >
> > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the caveat
> > of
> > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> > the
> > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> >
> > --
> > Kelvin.
> >
> > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Kelvin,
> > >
> > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > > bit later in the week.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> > about
> > > a
> > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > 1.0-incubator
> > > . We
> > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > currently
> > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > >
> > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you and,
> > if
> > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > >
> > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > really
> > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > using
> > > the
> > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > next
> > > one.
> > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> > the
> > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > > another
> > > thread).
> > >
> > >
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk>.
[I inadvertently sent a reply to tuscany-dev when this thread belongs on
tuscany-user, so copying my response here ...]
Good suggestion Steffen. If you were able to open a Jira and dump into it
any thoughts you may have had about the details of how you see this working
that would be great. The more detail you put there, the more likely it is
that someone who wants to get their hands dirty would be likely to pick it
up; unless of course you have plans for doing it yourself. As an aside,
it's always interesting to know the background to why a particular feature
is important to someone, so if you felt like commenting on your scenarios
that would benefit from this too, whether in the JIRA on or the list, that
would be great.
For my part here are the things that I'd like to see done ...
- reorganisation of the build to create release distributions in line with
the SCA release format
- review and improvement of the samples and implementation of an alternative
simple approach to running the samples that does not involve running a maven
build
- review and improvement of the website documentation
In addition, some things I'd like to see being done, but I don't see as
absolute prerequisites for a release are ...
- creation of a further sdo sub-project that permits automated exercising of
the sdo plugin and java generator
- more test cases
In terms of JIRA's, we currently have 3 marked for the specific release
[1], rather then the generic Java-SDO-Next bucket [2] that is the
placeholder for Jiras not assigned to a release.
TUSCANY-1317 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1317>,
TUSCANY-1143 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1143> ,
TUSCANY-513 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-513>
The first is there because the originator marked it for the beta1, which it
didn't make, but it looks well defined, so after the beta1 I changed the
fix release to the 1.0 release, but I don't think I'll have the bandwidth to
cover this.
The second is there because I want it to be, and plan to tackle it.
The third is there because the originator has provided a patch and I'm in
the process of committing it.
In the light of my priorities above, having taken a scan through [2] in
addition to 1143, I plan to look at ...
TUSCANY-1122 TypeConversionTestCase fails for JDK 1.4.2
TUSCANY-1127 ObtainingDataGraphFromXml, and maybe other samples,
incorrectly accessing xsd:any content
TUSCANY-1284 Manifest version number in Java SDO Impl and Tools jars
TUSCANY-257 recently added file Interface2JavaGenerator.java is not
compatible with JDK 1.4
and there are a few others I have my eye on, e.g. 303, if all the above
goes well.
Regards, Kelvin.
[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12311542&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312521&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
[2]
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&fixfor=12312262&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
On 09/06/07, Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
> generator.
>
> regards
> Steffen
>
> On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson < kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> > Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix
> > for
> > 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on what's
> > important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post
> > soon, but
> > in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added
> > recently
> > out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants
> > the
> > title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like to
> > do
> > this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> > feeling
> > of things that ought to have been done ;-)
> >
> > What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0release to
> > be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
> >
> > So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> > fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the caveat
> > of
> > course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into
> > the
> > release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
> >
> > --
> > Kelvin.
> >
> > On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Kelvin,
> > >
> > > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > > bit later in the week.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> > about
> > > a
> > > next release which I believe can be given the version tag
> > 1.0-incubator
> > > . We
> > > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> > currently
> > > have 33 open JIRAs.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > >
> > > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you and,
> > if
> > > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> > >
> > > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a
> > really
> > > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about
> > using
> > > the
> > > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the
> > next
> > > one.
> > > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve
> > the
> > > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > > another
> > > thread).
> > >
> > >
> > > Kelvin.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: [SDO Java DISCUSS] Contents of the next SDO release
Posted by Steffen Glomb <gl...@googlemail.com>.
i would like to see support for typesafe collections in the xsd2java
generator.
regards
Steffen
On 6/8/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to draw the communities attention to this issue again please.
> Thanks to David for responding with his requirements and with the fix for
> 1223. I have some thoughts that I'm structuring at the moment on what's
> important for a next release from my perspective that I'll post soon, but
> in general I'm just keen to get the good stuff that we have added recently
> out in a release that, as I said before from my perspective, warrants the
> title of "1.0". With the Summer holiday season coming up, I'd like to do
> this soon so that I can sun myself on a beach without that niggling
> feeling
> of things that ought to have been done ;-)
>
> What say you we put a stake in the ground of aiming for a SDO 1.0 release
> to
> be at the IPMC ratification stage by mid-July?
>
> So to that end I ask again, if you have requirements that you feel are
> fundamental to the next release please raise them now; with the caveat of
> course that the only way to be sure of getting your requirements into the
> release is to step forward and supply the fixes.
>
> --
> Kelvin.
>
> On 23/05/07, David Adcox <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Kelvin,
> >
> > I would like to see the multiple namepace issue resolved in the
> > XSD2JavaGenerator tool. This issue is covered in JIRA 1223.
> > Optionally, making it available to the plugin (JIRA 303) would be
> > nice. JIRA 1143 is something that I need fixed, as well. So any
> > focus that can be given to that prior to this release would be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > In the spirit of cooperation, I'll be posting a first pass on 1223 a
> > bit later in the week.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > With the beta1 release of SDO Java announced, I have begun thinking
> about
> > a
> > next release which I believe can be given the version tag 1.0-incubator
> > . We
> > have full coverage of the 2.1 SDO spec in the trunk now, and we
> currently
> > have 33 open JIRAs.
> >
> >
> >
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=1&status=3&status=4&component=12310660&component=12310973&component=12310802&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> >
> > Please give feedback on those issues which are important to you and, if
> > possible, step up to provide fixes for those issues.
> >
> > If we are to call this the 1.0 release then it ought to provide a really
> > good experience for the user. Please share your experiences about using
> > the
> > beta1 release and make suggestions or contributions to improve the next
> > one.
> > Aside from fixes to the code, key contributions would be to improve the
> > instructions, the samples and the documentation (we already have
> > discussions going on about the shape of the release distributions on
> > another
> > thread).
> >
> >
> > Kelvin.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>