You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> on 2007/07/12 17:53:15 UTC
[SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
Native release.
On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
> Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit and
> haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for TuscanySCA
> CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was curious if they had
> been contemplated yet.
>
> - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I
spec version
> - Move to ant instead of make
I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate?
Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for
simplifying the build though!
> - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes to
> data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
ok
> - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
sounds good.
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
Cheers,
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com>.
Adriano,
I fixed the SDO tests. Actually there was nothing wrong with the tests
themselves, but instead it was a path issue in the ant build.xml file.
The SDO test suite can be run either from the SDO root dir (ant test),
or from the runtime/core/test dir (ant)
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:56 PM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Hi Brady,
Thanks for volunteering to fix sdo test cases, I'm not the right person
to try to fix SDO test cases, but I can help with that. But,
unfortunatelly, I think I will not be able to help with SCA, I'm not
aware enough about SCA infrastructure to help with that. Who else could
help you with SCA test cases?
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Adriano,
>
> We should definitely get the SDO test suite passing at 100% on all
> platforms. I'll try to look at it today/tomorrow.
>
> I think your suggestion of "test then submit" should definitely be
> standard procedure. Otherwise its impossible to track errors, etc.
>
> It should be pretty simple to get the SDO test suite passing. As for
> SCA, since we have zero tests right now, we really need to get
> something in place. It's a rather daunting task though. :(
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:42 PM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> Hi Brady,
>
> Agreed, I think SDO unit testing infrastructure is enough. However,
> SDO test cases are not passing successfully, and I'm not sure if it's
> out of date or not. I think before each commit we should run the
> project_test to check if everything is alright and add new tests for
> new implemented features, but I'm not sure it's was being done for
SDO.
>
> Regards,
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well then, if we cant use CxxTest, and if DAS/SDO Native already
> > have a unit testing infrastructure in place, then I vote we just
> > use/copy that infrastructure for SCA Native.
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
> > PS: SCA Native used to have a unit test suite, but it was WAY out of
> > date and didn't even compile, so I asked for it to be removed.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com]
> > On Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > roadmap]
> >
> > Thanks ant,
> >
> > As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source
> > code,
>
> > then we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way
> > it
>
> > is.
> >
> > SCA unit tests - I never tested
> > SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and
> > does not use any unit test tool DAS unit tests(das_test project) -
> > working
>
> > fine and does not use any unit test tool
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adriano Crestani
> >
> > On 10/24/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an
> > > excluded
> >
> > > license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be
> used.
> > > Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed
> > > in
>
> > > a
> >
> > > distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > > On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So who do we have to check with?
> > > >
> > > > Brady
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
> > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > > roadmap]
> > > >
> > > > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went
> > > > round this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives
> > > > can't find anything. I'm no legal expert.
> > > >
> > > > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before
> > > > using it.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ;
> > > > > )
> > > > >
> > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Haleh,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according
> > > > > > > to
>
> > > > > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute
> > > > > > > it, right
> > > > Simon?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar
> > > > > > with
> >
> > > > > > the
> > > >
> > > > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a
> > concern.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the
> > > > > > >>tests
>
> > > > > > >>and test
> > > > > > tool
> > > > > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > > > >>>been
> >
> > > > > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that
> > > > > > >>>because you code to the cxxtest apis to write your test
> > > > > > >>>code it could
> >
> > > > > > >>>be considered a derivative work.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api
> > > > > > >>>that
> >
> > > > > > >>>we cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for
> > > > > > >>>another unit test. I was looking on the web site I
> > > > > > >>>commented before, most of them are GPL : (,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>but
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>I
> > > > > > >>>found this 2:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I
> > > > > > >>>cannot tell
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Regards,
> > > > > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > > > >>>>been discussed before and I think the conclusion was
> > > > > > >>>>that because you
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it
> > > > > > >>>>could be
> >
> > > > > > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and
> > > > > > >>>>>tell
>
> > > > > > >>>>>people
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>what
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree
> > > > > > >>>>>that having
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is
> > helpful.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Simon
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no
> > > > > > >>>>>>problem to
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>distribute
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list
> > > > > > >>>>>>contained on
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>the
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>web site
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>release?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>then
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>I
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>can
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>see
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>some
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>possible for
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>people
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Simon
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>process and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>don't
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>whoever
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>modify
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>if
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>modifications
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>look for
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>another
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>text
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>released source. I
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>really
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>dont
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>of
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>open
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>source
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>C/C++
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of
> > documentation.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>I
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>updated
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA
> > > > > > >>+N
> > > > > > >>at
> > > > > > >>ive+
> > > > > > >>Next+R
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
> > > > features?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content
[was:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>roadmap]
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>(architecture, get started
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>user
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>story
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>between
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Native
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>and
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>example a sample
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>of
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>a
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>in that
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>to
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>and
> > cpp).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>release)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>rearchitecture of
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>the
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>model.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>out
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>a
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>for
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>><bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Native
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Release
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/S
> > > > > > >>>>CA
> > > > > > >>>>+N
> > > > > > >>>>ativ
> > > > > > >>>>e+Ne
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed
there.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Also,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>what's
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>implementing
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>changes?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content
> [was:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>><bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous
> post:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>don't
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>making
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>unit/basic test
> > > > suite.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>samples to
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>test
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>not
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build up
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>unit
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>to start this
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>(use
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>make
> > > > discussion.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplify the build process using make. I've
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>looked through some of the makefiles
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build from
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>source
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>MSVC
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>it
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>can
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>settled on
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>automake
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>source
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>projects.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>to
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>hate it
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>;-) ...
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>you
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>an
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>ant
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>along with
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>that.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>what
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the build
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>would
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>roadmap]
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>SCA
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>><bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>looked around
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>future plans for TuscanySCA CPP were in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>particular. I have
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>a few ideas and I
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>was
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>extension
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>to the
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>1.0C++
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little
> better.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Can you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>discuss
> > > > this.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I'm
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>all
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>structure
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC
> > encoded...
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>--
> > > > > > >>--
> > > > > > >>----
> > > > > > >>---
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>--
> > > > > > >>>>Pete
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pete
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi Brady,
Thanks for volunteering to fix sdo test cases, I'm not the right person to
try to fix SDO test cases, but I can help with that. But, unfortunatelly, I
think I will not be able to help with SCA, I'm not aware enough about SCA
infrastructure to help with that. Who else could help you with SCA test
cases?
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Adriano,
>
> We should definitely get the SDO test suite passing at 100% on all
> platforms. I'll try to look at it today/tomorrow.
>
> I think your suggestion of "test then submit" should definitely be
> standard procedure. Otherwise its impossible to track errors, etc.
>
> It should be pretty simple to get the SDO test suite passing. As for
> SCA, since we have zero tests right now, we really need to get something
> in place. It's a rather daunting task though. :(
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:42 PM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> Hi Brady,
>
> Agreed, I think SDO unit testing infrastructure is enough. However, SDO
> test cases are not passing successfully, and I'm not sure if it's out of
> date or not. I think before each commit we should run the project_test
> to check if everything is alright and add new tests for new implemented
> features, but I'm not sure it's was being done for SDO.
>
> Regards,
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well then, if we cant use CxxTest, and if DAS/SDO Native already have
> > a unit testing infrastructure in place, then I vote we just use/copy
> > that infrastructure for SCA Native.
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
> > PS: SCA Native used to have a unit test suite, but it was WAY out of
> > date and didn't even compile, so I asked for it to be removed.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
> > Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >
> > Thanks ant,
> >
> > As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source code,
>
> > then we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way it
>
> > is.
> >
> > SCA unit tests - I never tested
> > SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and does
> > not use any unit test tool DAS unit tests(das_test project) - working
>
> > fine and does not use any unit test tool
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adriano Crestani
> >
> > On 10/24/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an
> > > excluded
> >
> > > license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be
> used.
> > > Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in
>
> > > a
> >
> > > distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > > On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So who do we have to check with?
> > > >
> > > > Brady
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
> > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > > roadmap]
> > > >
> > > > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went
> > > > round this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives
> > > > can't find anything. I'm no legal expert.
> > > >
> > > > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before
> > > > using it.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
> > > > >
> > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Haleh,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to
>
> > > > > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it,
> > > > > > > right
> > > > Simon?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar
> > > > > > with
> >
> > > > > > the
> > > >
> > > > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a
> > concern.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests
>
> > > > > > >>and test
> > > > > > tool
> > > > > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > > > >>>been
> >
> > > > > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that
> > > > > > >>>because you code to the cxxtest apis to write your test
> > > > > > >>>code it could
> >
> > > > > > >>>be considered a derivative work.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api
> > > > > > >>>that
> >
> > > > > > >>>we cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for
> > > > > > >>>another unit test. I was looking on the web site I
> > > > > > >>>commented before, most of them are GPL : (,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>but
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>I
> > > > > > >>>found this 2:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I
> > > > > > >>>cannot tell
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Regards,
> > > > > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > > > >>>>been discussed before and I think the conclusion was that
> > > > > > >>>>because you
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could
> > > > > > >>>>be
> >
> > > > > > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell
>
> > > > > > >>>>>people
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>what
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree
> > > > > > >>>>>that having
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is
> > helpful.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Simon
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no
> > > > > > >>>>>>problem to
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>distribute
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list
> > > > > > >>>>>>contained on
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>the
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>web site
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>release?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>I
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>can
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>see
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>some
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>possible for
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>people
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Simon
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>process and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>don't
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>whoever
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>modify
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>modifications
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>look for
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>another
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>text
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>source. I
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>really
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>dont
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>open
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>source
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>C/C++
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of
> > documentation.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>I
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>updated
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+N
> > > > > > >>at
> > > > > > >>ive+
> > > > > > >>Next+R
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
> > > > features?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>roadmap]
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>get started
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>user
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>between
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Native
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>and
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>example a sample
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>of
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>a
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>in that
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>to
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and
> > cpp).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>release)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>of
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>the
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>model.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>a
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>for
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Native
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Release
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA
> > > > > > >>>>+N
> > > > > > >>>>ativ
> > > > > > >>>>e+Ne
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Also,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>what's
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>changes?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content
> [was:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous
> post:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>don't
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>making
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>test
> > > > suite.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>samples to
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>test
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build up
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>unit
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>start this
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>(use
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make
> > > > discussion.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the build process using make. I've looked through
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>some of the makefiles
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build from
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>source
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>MSVC
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>it
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>can
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>settled on
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>automake
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>source
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>projects.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>hate it
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>;-) ...
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>you
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>an
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>ant
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>along with
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>that.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the build
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>would
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>roadmap]
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>SCA
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>><bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>looked around
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>a
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>plans for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>have
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>a few ideas and I
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>was
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>to the
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>1.0C++
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little
> better.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Can you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>discuss
> > > > this.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I'm
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>all
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>structure
> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC
> > encoded...
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>--
> > > > > > >>----
> > > > > > >>---
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>--
> > > > > > >>>>Pete
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pete
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com>.
Adriano,
We should definitely get the SDO test suite passing at 100% on all
platforms. I'll try to look at it today/tomorrow.
I think your suggestion of "test then submit" should definitely be
standard procedure. Otherwise its impossible to track errors, etc.
It should be pretty simple to get the SDO test suite passing. As for
SCA, since we have zero tests right now, we really need to get something
in place. It's a rather daunting task though. :(
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:42 PM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Hi Brady,
Agreed, I think SDO unit testing infrastructure is enough. However, SDO
test cases are not passing successfully, and I'm not sure if it's out of
date or not. I think before each commit we should run the project_test
to check if everything is alright and add new tests for new implemented
features, but I'm not sure it's was being done for SDO.
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well then, if we cant use CxxTest, and if DAS/SDO Native already have
> a unit testing infrastructure in place, then I vote we just use/copy
> that infrastructure for SCA Native.
>
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> PS: SCA Native used to have a unit test suite, but it was WAY out of
> date and didn't even compile, so I asked for it to be removed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> Thanks ant,
>
> As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source code,
> then we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way it
> is.
>
> SCA unit tests - I never tested
> SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and does
> not use any unit test tool DAS unit tests(das_test project) - working
> fine and does not use any unit test tool
>
> Regards,
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/24/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an
> > excluded
>
> > license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be
used.
> > Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in
> > a
>
> > distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So who do we have to check with?
> > >
> > > Brady
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > roadmap]
> > >
> > > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went
> > > round this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives
> > > can't find anything. I'm no legal expert.
> > >
> > > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before
> > > using it.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
> > > >
> > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > >
> > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Haleh,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to
> > > > > > Simon
> > >
> > > > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it,
> > > > > > right
> > > Simon?
> > > > > >
> > > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar
> > > > > with
>
> > > > > the
> > >
> > > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a
> concern.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests
> > > > > >>and test
> > > > > tool
> > > > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > > >>>been
>
> > > > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that
> > > > > >>>because you code to the cxxtest apis to write your test
> > > > > >>>code it could
>
> > > > > >>>be considered a derivative work.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api
> > > > > >>>that
>
> > > > > >>>we cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for
> > > > > >>>another unit test. I was looking on the web site I
> > > > > >>>commented before, most of them are GPL : (,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>but
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>I
> > > > > >>>found this 2:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I
> > > > > >>>cannot tell
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Regards,
> > > > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > > >>>>been discussed before and I think the conclusion was that
> > > > > >>>>because you
> > >
> > > > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could
> > > > > >>>>be
>
> > > > > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell
> > > > > >>>>>people
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>what
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree
> > > > > >>>>>that having
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>a
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is
> helpful.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Simon
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no
> > > > > >>>>>>problem to
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>distribute
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list
> > > > > >>>>>>contained on
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>the
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>web site
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a
> > > > > >>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>release?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then
> > > > > >>>>>>>I
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>can
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>see
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>some
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be
> > > > > >>>>>>>possible for
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>people
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Simon
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development
> > > > > >>>>>>>>process and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>don't
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>whoever
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>modify
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>the
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>the
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>modifications
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>look for
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>another
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>text
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released
> > > > > >>>>>>>>source. I
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>really
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>dont
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>open
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>source
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>C/C++
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of
> documentation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>I
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>updated
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+N
> > > > > >>at
> > > > > >>ive+
> > > > > >>Next+R
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
> > > features?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>roadmap]
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>get started
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>user
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>between
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Native
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>and
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>example a sample
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>of
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>a
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>in that
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>to
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and
> cpp).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>release)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>of
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>the
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>model.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>a
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>for
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Native
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Release
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA
> > > > > >>>>+N
> > > > > >>>>ativ
> > > > > >>>>e+Ne
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Also,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>what's
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>changes?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content
[was:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous
post:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>don't
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>making
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>test
> > > suite.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>samples to
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>test
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build up
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>unit
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>start this
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>(use
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make
> > > discussion.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the build process using make. I've looked through
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>some of the makefiles
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build from
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>source
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>MSVC
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>it
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>can
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>settled on
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>automake
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>source
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>projects.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>hate it
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>;-) ...
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>you
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>an
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>ant
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>along with
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>that.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the build
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>would
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>roadmap]
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>SCA
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>><bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>looked around
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>a
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>plans for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>have
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>a few ideas and I
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>was
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>to the
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>1.0C++
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little
better.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Can you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>discuss
> > > this.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>I'm
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>all
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>structure
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC
> encoded...
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>--
> > > > > >>----
> > > > > >>---
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>--
> > > > > >>>>Pete
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----
> > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi Brady,
Agreed, I think SDO unit testing infrastructure is enough. However, SDO test
cases are not passing successfully, and I'm not sure if it's out of date or
not. I think before each commit we should run the project_test to check if
everything is alright and add new tests for new implemented features, but
I'm not sure it's was being done for SDO.
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well then, if we cant use CxxTest, and if DAS/SDO Native already have a
> unit testing infrastructure in place, then I vote we just use/copy that
> infrastructure for SCA Native.
>
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> PS: SCA Native used to have a unit test suite, but it was WAY out of
> date and didn't even compile, so I asked for it to be removed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> Thanks ant,
>
> As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source code,
> then we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way it
> is.
>
> SCA unit tests - I never tested
> SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and does
> not use any unit test tool DAS unit tests(das_test project) - working
> fine and does not use any unit test tool
>
> Regards,
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/24/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an excluded
>
> > license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be used.
> > Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in a
>
> > distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So who do we have to check with?
> > >
> > > Brady
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > roadmap]
> > >
> > > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went
> > > round this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't
> > > find anything. I'm no legal expert.
> > >
> > > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before
> > > using it.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
> > > >
> > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > >
> > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Haleh,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to
> > > > > > Simon
> > >
> > > > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it,
> > > > > > right
> > > Simon?
> > > > > >
> > > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with
>
> > > > > the
> > >
> > > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a
> concern.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests
> > > > > >>and test
> > > > > tool
> > > > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
>
> > > > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because
> > > > > >>>you code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could
>
> > > > > >>>be considered a derivative work.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that
>
> > > > > >>>we cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for
> > > > > >>>another unit test. I was looking on the web site I commented
> > > > > >>>before, most of them are GPL : (,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>but
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>I
> > > > > >>>found this 2:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I
> > > > > >>>cannot tell
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Regards,
> > > > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > > >>>>been discussed before and I think the conclusion was that
> > > > > >>>>because you
> > >
> > > > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
>
> > > > > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell
> > > > > >>>>>people
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>what
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree
> > > > > >>>>>that having
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>a
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is
> helpful.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Simon
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no
> > > > > >>>>>>problem to
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>distribute
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list
> > > > > >>>>>>contained on
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>the
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>web site
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a
> > > > > >>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>release?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>can
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>see
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>some
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be
> > > > > >>>>>>>possible for
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>people
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Simon
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development
> > > > > >>>>>>>>process and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>don't
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>modify
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>the
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>the
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>modifications
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look
> > > > > >>>>>>>>for
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>another
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>text
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released
> > > > > >>>>>>>>source. I
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>really
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>dont
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>open
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>source
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>C/C++
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of
> documentation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>I
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>updated
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Nat
> > > > > >>ive+
> > > > > >>Next+R
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
> > > features?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>roadmap]
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>get started
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>user
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>between
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Native
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>and
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>a sample
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>of
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>a
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>that
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>to
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and
> cpp).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>release)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>the
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>model.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>for
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Release
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+N
> > > > > >>>>ativ
> > > > > >>>>e+Ne
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Also,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>what's
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>the
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>changes?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>making
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>test
> > > suite.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>samples to
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>test
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build up
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>unit
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>start this
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>(use
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make
> > > discussion.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the build process using make. I've looked through
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>some of the makefiles
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build from
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>source
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>MSVC
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>it
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>can
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>settled on
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>automake
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>source
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>projects.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>hate it
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>;-) ...
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>an
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>ant
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>along with
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>that.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the build
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>would
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>roadmap]
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>SCA
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>looked around
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>a
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>plans for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>a few ideas and I
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>was
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>to the
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>1.0C++
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Can you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss
> > > this.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>I'm
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>all
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC
> encoded...
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>----
> > > > > >>---
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>--
> > > > > >>>>Pete
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com>.
Well then, if we cant use CxxTest, and if DAS/SDO Native already have a
unit testing infrastructure in place, then I vote we just use/copy that
infrastructure for SCA Native.
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
PS: SCA Native used to have a unit test suite, but it was WAY out of
date and didn't even compile, so I asked for it to be removed.
-----Original Message-----
From: adrianocrestani@gmail.com [mailto:adrianocrestani@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Adriano Crestani
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Thanks ant,
As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source code,
then we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way it
is.
SCA unit tests - I never tested
SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and does
not use any unit test tool DAS unit tests(das_test project) - working
fine and does not use any unit test tool
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/24/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an excluded
> license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be used.
> Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in a
> distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So who do we have to check with?
> >
> > Brady
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > roadmap]
> >
> > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went
> > round this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't
> > find anything. I'm no legal expert.
> >
> > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before
> > using it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
> > >
> > > Adriano Crestani
> > >
> > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Haleh,
> > > > >
> > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to
> > > > > Simon
> >
> > > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it,
> > > > > right
> > Simon?
> > > > >
> > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with
> > > > the
> >
> > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a
concern.
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests
> > > > >>and test
> > > > tool
> > > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because
> > > > >>>you code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could
> > > > >>>be considered a derivative work.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that
> > > > >>>we cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for
> > > > >>>another unit test. I was looking on the web site I commented
> > > > >>>before, most of them are GPL : (,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>but
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>I
> > > > >>>found this 2:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I
> > > > >>>cannot tell
> > > > for
> > > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Regards,
> > > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has
> > > > >>>>been discussed before and I think the conclusion was that
> > > > >>>>because you
> >
> > > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
> > > > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell
> > > > >>>>>people
> > > > >>
> > > > >>what
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree
> > > > >>>>>that having
> > > > >>
> > > > >>a
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is
helpful.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Simon
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no
> > > > >>>>>>problem to
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>distribute
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list
> > > > >>>>>>contained on
> > > > >>
> > > > >>the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>web site
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a
> > > > >>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>release?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I
> > > > >>>>>>>can
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>see
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>some
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be
> > > > >>>>>>>possible for
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>people
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Simon
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development
> > > > >>>>>>>>process and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>don't
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever
> > > > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>modify
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>the
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if
> > > > >>>>>>>>the
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>modifications
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look
> > > > >>>>>>>>for
> > > > >>
> > > > >>another
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>text
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released
> > > > >>>>>>>>source. I
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>really
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>dont
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of
> > > > >>>>>>>>open
> > > > >>
> > > > >>source
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>C/C++
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of
documentation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>I
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>updated
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>the
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Nat
> > > > >>ive+
> > > > >>Next+R
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
> > features?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > >>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>roadmap]
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>get started
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>user
> > > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story
> > > > >>>>>>>>>between
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Native
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>and
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example
> > > > >>>>>>>>>a sample
> > > > >>
> > > > >>of
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>a
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>that
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>to
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and
cpp).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>release)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>the
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>model.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>for
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Release
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+N
> > > > >>>>ativ
> > > > >>>>e+Ne
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Also,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>what's
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>the
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>changes?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>making
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>test
> > suite.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>samples to
> > > > >>
> > > > >>test
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build up
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > > > >>
> > > > >>unit
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>start this
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>(use
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make
> > discussion.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the build process using make. I've looked through
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>some of the makefiles
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build from
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>source
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>MSVC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > > > >>
> > > > >>it
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>can
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>settled on
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>automake
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>source
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>projects.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>hate it
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>;-) ...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > > > >>
> > > > >>an
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>ant
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>along with
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>that.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>the build
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>would
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>roadmap]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>SCA
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>looked around
> > > > >>
> > > > >>a
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>plans for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>a few ideas and I
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>was
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>to the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>1.0C++
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Can you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss
> > this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I'm
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>all
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC
encoded...
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>----
> > > > >>---
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>>tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>--
> > > > >>>>Pete
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
Thanks ant,
As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source code, then
we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way it is.
SCA unit tests - I never tested
SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and does not
use any unit test tool
DAS unit tests(das_test project) - working fine and does not use any unit
test tool
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/24/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an excluded
> license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be used.
> Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in a
> distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So who do we have to check with?
> >
> > Brady
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >
> > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went round
> > this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't find
> > anything. I'm no legal expert.
> >
> > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before using
> > it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
> > >
> > > Adriano Crestani
> > >
> > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Haleh,
> > > > >
> > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon
> >
> > > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right
> > Simon?
> > > > >
> > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the
> >
> > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern.
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and
> > > > >>test
> > > > tool
> > > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you
> > > > >>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
> > > > >>>considered a derivative work.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we
> > > > >>>cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit
> > > > >>>test. I was looking on the web site I commented before, most of
> > > > >>>them are GPL : (,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>but
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>I
> > > > >>>found this 2:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot
> > > > >>>tell
> > > > for
> > > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Regards,
> > > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > > > >>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you
> >
> > > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
> > > > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell
> > > > >>>>>people
> > > > >>
> > > > >>what
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that
> > > > >>>>>having
> > > > >>
> > > > >>a
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Simon
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem
> > > > >>>>>>to
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>distribute
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained
> > > > >>>>>>on
> > > > >>
> > > > >>the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>web site
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>release?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>see
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>some
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible
> > > > >>>>>>>for
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>people
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Simon
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process
> > > > >>>>>>>>and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>don't
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever
> > > > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>modify
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>the
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>modifications
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for
> > > > >>
> > > > >>another
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>text
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released
> > > > >>>>>>>>source. I
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>really
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>dont
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open
> > > > >>
> > > > >>source
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>C/C++
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>I
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>updated
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>the
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+
> > > > >>Next+R
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
> > features?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>roadmap]
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get
> > > > >>>>>>>>>started
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>user
> > > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story
> > > > >>>>>>>>>between
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Native
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>and
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>sample
> > > > >>
> > > > >>of
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>a
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>to
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a release)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>model.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>for
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Release
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Nativ
> > > > >>>>e+Ne
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>what's
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>the
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>changes?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>making
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test
> > suite.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>to
> > > > >>
> > > > >>test
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > > > >>
> > > > >>unit
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>this
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>(use
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make
> > discussion.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>build process using make. I've looked through some of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the makefiles
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>from
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>source
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > > > >>
> > > > >>it
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>can
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>automake
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>projects.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>it
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>;-) ...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > > > >>
> > > > >>an
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>ant
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>with
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>that.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>would
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>roadmap]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>SCA
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>around
> > > > >>
> > > > >>a
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>ideas and I
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>was
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>1.0C++
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss
> > this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I'm
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>all
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>---
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>--
> > > > >>>>Pete
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an excluded
license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be used.
Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in a
distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
...ant
On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> So who do we have to check with?
>
> Brady
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went round
> this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't find
> anything. I'm no legal expert.
>
> I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before using
> it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
> >
> > Adriano Crestani
> >
> > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Haleh,
> > > >
> > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon
>
> > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right
> Simon?
> > > >
> > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the
>
> > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > >
> > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and
> > > >>test
> > > tool
> > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > > >>
> > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you
> > > >>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
> > > >>>considered a derivative work.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we
> > > >>>cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit
> > > >>>test. I was looking on the web site I commented before, most of
> > > >>>them are GPL : (,
> > > >>
> > > >>but
> > > >>
> > > >>>I
> > > >>>found this 2:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot
> > > >>>tell
> > > for
> > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Regards,
> > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > > >>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you
>
> > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
> > > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Cheers,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell
> > > >>>>>people
> > > >>
> > > >>what
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that
> > > >>>>>having
> > > >>
> > > >>a
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Simon
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem
> > > >>>>>>to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>distribute
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained
> > > >>>>>>on
> > > >>
> > > >>the
> > > >>
> > > >>>>web site
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Regards,
> > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
> > > >>>
> > > >>>release?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can
>
> > > >>>>>>>see
> > > >>>
> > > >>>some
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible
> > > >>>>>>>for
> > > >>>
> > > >>>people
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Simon
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process
> > > >>>>>>>>and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>don't
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever
> > > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>modify
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>the
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>modifications
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for
> > > >>
> > > >>another
> > > >>
> > > >>>>text
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released
> > > >>>>>>>>source. I
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>really
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>dont
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open
> > > >>
> > > >>source
> > > >>
> > > >>>>C/C++
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>updated
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+
> > > >>Next+R
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
> features?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > >>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>roadmap]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get
> > > >>>>>>>>>started
> > > >>>
> > > >>>and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>user
> > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story
> > > >>>>>>>>>between
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Native
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a
> > > >>>>>>>>>sample
> > > >>
> > > >>of
> > > >>
> > > >>>a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > > >>>
> > > >>>to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a release)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>model.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > > >>>
> > > >>>for
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Release
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Nativ
> > > >>>>e+Ne
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also,
> > > >>
> > > >>what's
> > > >>
> > > >>>>the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the
> > > >>
> > > >>changes?
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > > >>>
> > > >>>making
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test
> suite.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>to
> > > >>
> > > >>test
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > > >>>
> > > >>>and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > > >>
> > > >>unit
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>this
> > > >>>
> > > >>>(use
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make
> discussion.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>build process using make. I've looked through some of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the makefiles
> > > >>>
> > > >>>and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>from
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>source
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > > >>
> > > >>it
> > > >>
> > > >>>>can
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>on
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>automake
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
> > > >>>
> > > >>>projects.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>it
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>;-) ...
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > > >>
> > > >>an
> > > >>
> > > >>>>ant
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>with
> > > >>>
> > > >>>that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>build
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>would
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > >>>
> > > >>>roadmap]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > > >>>
> > > >>>SCA
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>around
> > > >>
> > > >>a
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>ideas and I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>was
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > > >>
> > > >>1.0C++
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>you
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss
> this.
> > > >>
> > > >>I'm
> > > >>
> > > >>>>all
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>---
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>--
> > > >>>>Pete
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <Br...@roguewave.com>.
So who do we have to check with?
Brady
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went round
this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't find
anything. I'm no legal expert.
I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before using
it.
Cheers,
On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
>
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Haleh,
> > >
> > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon
> > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right
Simon?
> > >
> > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the
> > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > > Adriano Crestani
> > >
> > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and
> > >>test
> > tool
> > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > >>
> > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you
> > >>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
> > >>>considered a derivative work.
> > >>>
> > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we
> > >>>cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit
> > >>>test. I was looking on the web site I commented before, most of
> > >>>them are GPL : (,
> > >>
> > >>but
> > >>
> > >>>I
> > >>>found this 2:
> > >>>
> > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > >>>
> > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot
> > >>>tell
> > for
> > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > >>>
> > >>>Regards,
> > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > >>>
> > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > >>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you
> > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be
> > >>>>considered a derivative work.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell
> > >>>>>people
> > >>
> > >>what
> > >>
> > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that
> > >>>>>having
> > >>
> > >>a
> > >>
> > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Simon
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem
> > >>>>>>to
> > >>>>
> > >>>>distribute
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained
> > >>>>>>on
> > >>
> > >>the
> > >>
> > >>>>web site
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Regards,
> > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
> > >>>
> > >>>release?
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can
> > >>>>>>>see
> > >>>
> > >>>some
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible
> > >>>>>>>for
> > >>>
> > >>>people
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Simon
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process
> > >>>>>>>>and
> > >>>
> > >>>don't
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever
> > >>>>>>>>wants to
> > >>>>
> > >>>>modify
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>modifications
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for
> > >>
> > >>another
> > >>
> > >>>>text
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released
> > >>>>>>>>source. I
> > >>>>
> > >>>>really
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>dont
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open
> > >>
> > >>source
> > >>
> > >>>>C/C++
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation.
> > >>>>>>>>>I
> > >>>
> > >>>updated
> > >>>
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+
> > >>Next+R
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these
features?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany
> > >>>>
> > >>>>roadmap]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get
> > >>>>>>>>>started
> > >>>
> > >>>and
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>user
> > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story
> > >>>>>>>>>between
> > >>>
> > >>>Native
> > >>>
> > >>>>and
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a
> > >>>>>>>>>sample
> > >>
> > >>of
> > >>
> > >>>a
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that
> > >>>>>>>>>>list
> > >>>
> > >>>to
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a release)
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>data
> > >>>>
> > >>>>model.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a
> > >>>>>>>>>>proposal
> > >>>
> > >>>for
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Next
> > >>>
> > >>>Release
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Nativ
> > >>>>e+Ne
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also,
> > >>
> > >>what's
> > >>
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the
> > >>
> > >>changes?
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
> > >>>
> > >>>making
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test
suite.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples
> > >>>>>>>>>>>to
> > >>
> > >>test
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained
> > >>>
> > >>>and
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up
> > >>>>>>>>>>>a
> > >>
> > >>unit
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start
> > >>>>>>>>>>>this
> > >>>
> > >>>(use
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make
discussion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>build process using make. I've looked through some of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>the makefiles
> > >>>
> > >>>and
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>from
> > >>>>
> > >>>>source
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so
> > >>
> > >>it
> > >>
> > >>>>can
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled
> > >>>>>>>>>>>on
> > >>>>
> > >>>>automake
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
> > >>>
> > >>>projects.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>it
> > >>>>
> > >>>>;-) ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>believe
> > >>
> > >>an
> > >>
> > >>>>ant
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along
> > >>>>>>>>>>>with
> > >>>
> > >>>that.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>build
> > >>>>
> > >>>>would
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > >>>
> > >>>roadmap]
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>next
> > >>>
> > >>>SCA
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>around
> > >>
> > >>a
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>ideas and I
> > >>>
> > >>>was
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> > >>
> > >>1.0C++
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>you
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss
this.
> > >>
> > >>I'm
> > >>
> > >>>>all
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>---
> > >>
> > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>Pete
> > >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went round
this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't find
anything. I'm no legal expert.
I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before using it.
Cheers,
On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
>
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Haleh,
> > >
> > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon it's
> > > considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right Simon?
> > >
> > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the
> > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > > Adriano Crestani
> > >
> > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and test
> > tool
> > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> > >>
> > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> > >>>to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> > >>>derivative work.
> > >>>
> > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot
> > >>>distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was
> > >>>looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (,
> > >>
> > >>but
> > >>
> > >>>I
> > >>>found this 2:
> > >>>
> > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> > >>>
> > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell
> > for
> > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> > >>>
> > >>>Regards,
> > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > >>>
> > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > >>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> > >>>>to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> > >>>>derivative work.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people
> > >>
> > >>what
> > >>
> > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having
> > >>
> > >>a
> > >>
> > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Simon
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to
> > >>>>
> > >>>>distribute
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on
> > >>
> > >>the
> > >>
> > >>>>web site
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Regards,
> > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
> > >>>
> > >>>release?
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see
> > >>>
> > >>>some
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for
> > >>>
> > >>>people
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Simon
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and
> > >>>
> > >>>don't
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to
> > >>>>
> > >>>>modify
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>modifications
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for
> > >>
> > >>another
> > >>
> > >>>>text
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I
> > >>>>
> > >>>>really
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>dont
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open
> > >>
> > >>source
> > >>
> > >>>>C/C++
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I
> > >>>
> > >>>updated
> > >>>
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > >>>>>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > >>>>
> > >>>>roadmap]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started
> > >>>
> > >>>and
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>user
> > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between
> > >>>
> > >>>Native
> > >>>
> > >>>>and
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample
> > >>
> > >>of
> > >>
> > >>>a
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list
> > >>>
> > >>>to
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant
> > >>>>>>>>>>(enough there for a release)
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data
> > >>>>
> > >>>>model.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal
> > >>>
> > >>>for
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next
> > >>>
> > >>>Release
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also,
> > >>
> > >>what's
> > >>
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the
> > >>
> > >>changes?
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > >>>>>>>>>>>roadmap]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like
> > >>>
> > >>>making
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to
> > >>
> > >>test
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained
> > >>>
> > >>>and
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a
> > >>
> > >>unit
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this
> > >>>
> > >>>(use
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles
> > >>>
> > >>>and
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from
> > >>>>
> > >>>>source
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so
> > >>
> > >>it
> > >>
> > >>>>can
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on
> > >>>>
> > >>>>automake
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
> > >>>
> > >>>projects.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it
> > >>>>
> > >>>>;-) ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe
> > >>
> > >>an
> > >>
> > >>>>ant
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with
> > >>>
> > >>>that.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build
> > >>>>
> > >>>>would
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > >>>
> > >>>roadmap]
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next
> > >>>
> > >>>SCA
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around
> > >>
> > >>a
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I
> > >>>
> > >>>was
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the
> > >>
> > >>1.0C++
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this.
> > >>
> > >>I'm
> > >>
> > >>>>all
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>changes to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>Pete
> > >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; )
Adriano Crestani
On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Adriano Crestani wrote:
>
> > Hi Haleh,
> >
> > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon it's
> > considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right Simon?
> >
> This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the
> stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern.
>
> Simon
>
> > Adriano Crestani
> >
> > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and test
> tool
> >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
> >>
> >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> >>>to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> >>>derivative work.
> >>>
> >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot
> >>>distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was
> >>>looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (,
> >>
> >>but
> >>
> >>>I
> >>>found this 2:
> >>>
> >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> >>>
> >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell
> for
> >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Adriano Crestani
> >>>
> >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> >>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> >>>>to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> >>>>derivative work.
> >>>>
> >>>>Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people
> >>
> >>what
> >>
> >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having
> >>
> >>a
> >>
> >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simon
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hi Simon,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to
> >>>>
> >>>>distribute
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>>web site
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I could be helpful :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
> >>>
> >>>release?
> >>>
> >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see
> >>>
> >>>some
> >>>
> >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for
> >>>
> >>>people
> >>>
> >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and
> >>>
> >>>don't
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to
> >>>>
> >>>>modify
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> >>>>
> >>>>modifications
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for
> >>
> >>another
> >>
> >>>>text
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I
> >>>>
> >>>>really
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>dont
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open
> >>
> >>source
> >>
> >>>>C/C++
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I
> >>>
> >>>updated
> >>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> >>>>>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> >>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> >>>>
> >>>>roadmap]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started
> >>>
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>user
> >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between
> >>>
> >>>Native
> >>>
> >>>>and
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample
> >>
> >>of
> >>
> >>>a
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list
> >>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant
> >>>>>>>>>>(enough there for a release)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data
> >>>>
> >>>>model.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal
> >>>
> >>>for
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>that.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next
> >>>
> >>>Release
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
> >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also,
> >>
> >>what's
> >>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the
> >>
> >>changes?
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> >>>>>>>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> >>>>>>>>>>>roadmap]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like
> >>>
> >>>making
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to
> >>
> >>test
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained
> >>>
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a
> >>
> >>unit
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this
> >>>
> >>>(use
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles
> >>>
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from
> >>>>
> >>>>source
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so
> >>
> >>it
> >>
> >>>>can
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on
> >>>>
> >>>>automake
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
> >>>
> >>>projects.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it
> >>>>
> >>>>;-) ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe
> >>
> >>an
> >>
> >>>>ant
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with
> >>>
> >>>that.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build
> >>>>
> >>>>would
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> >>>
> >>>roadmap]
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next
> >>>
> >>>SCA
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around
> >>
> >>a
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I
> >>>
> >>>was
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the
> >>
> >>1.0C++
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>elaborate?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this.
> >>
> >>I'm
> >>
> >>>>all
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>for
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>changes to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>--
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Pete
> >>>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Adriano Crestani wrote:
> Hi Haleh,
>
> This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon it's
> considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right Simon?
>
This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the
stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern.
Simon
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and test tool
>>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
>>
>>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
>>>to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
>>>derivative work.
>>>
>>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot
>>>distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was
>>>looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (,
>>
>>but
>>
>>>I
>>>found this 2:
>>>
>>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
>>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell for
>>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Adriano Crestani
>>>
>>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
>>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
>>>>to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
>>>>derivative work.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people
>>
>>what
>>
>>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Simon,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to
>>>>
>>>>distribute
>>>>
>>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>web site
>>>>
>>>>>>I could be helpful :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
>>>
>>>release?
>>>
>>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see
>>>
>>>some
>>>
>>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for
>>>
>>>people
>>>
>>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and
>>>
>>>don't
>>>
>>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to
>>>>
>>>>modify
>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
>>>>
>>>>modifications
>>>>
>>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for
>>
>>another
>>
>>>>text
>>>>
>>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I
>>>>
>>>>really
>>>>
>>>>>>>dont
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open
>>
>>source
>>
>>>>C/C++
>>>>
>>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I
>>>
>>>updated
>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
>>
>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
>>>>>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
>>>>
>>>>roadmap]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>>>>>>user
>>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between
>>>
>>>Native
>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample
>>
>>of
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
>>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
>>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant
>>>>>>>>>>(enough there for a release)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data
>>>>
>>>>model.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal
>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next
>>>
>>>Release
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>xt+R
>>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also,
>>
>>what's
>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the
>>
>>changes?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
>>>>>>>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
>>>>>>>>>>>roadmap]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
>>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like
>>>
>>>making
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to
>>
>>test
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a
>>
>>unit
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this
>>>
>>>(use
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
>>>>>>>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from
>>>>
>>>>source
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so
>>
>>it
>>
>>>>can
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on
>>>>
>>>>automake
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
>>>
>>>projects.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it
>>>>
>>>>;-) ...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe
>>
>>an
>>
>>>>ant
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with
>>>
>>>that.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build
>>>>
>>>>would
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
>>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
>>>
>>>roadmap]
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next
>>>
>>>SCA
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Native release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I
>>>
>>>was
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the
>>
>>1.0C++
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>elaborate?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this.
>>
>>I'm
>>
>>>>all
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>>Pete
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Pete
>>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi Haleh,
This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon it's
considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right Simon?
Adriano Crestani
On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and test tool
> outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
>
> On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> > to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> > derivative work.
> >
> > So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot
> > distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was
> > looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (,
> but
> > I
> > found this 2:
> >
> > http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> > http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell for
> > sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adriano Crestani
> >
> > On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > > discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> > > to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> > > derivative work.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people
> what
> > > > tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having
> a
> > > > list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to
> > > distribute
> > > > > the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on
> the
> > > web site
> > > > > I could be helpful :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
> > release?
> > > > >>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see
> > some
> > > > >>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for
> > people
> > > > >>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Simon
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and
> > don't
> > > > >>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to
> > > modify
> > > > >>
> > > > >>the
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> > > modifications
> > > > >>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for
> another
> > > text
> > > > >>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I
> > > really
> > > > >>
> > > > >>dont
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open
> source
> > > C/C++
> > > > >>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Regards,
> > > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I
> > updated
> > > the
> > > > >>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > >
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> > > > >>>>elease+Contents
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > > >>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > > >>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > > >>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > roadmap]
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started
> > and
> > > > >>>>user
> > > > >>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between
> > Native
> > > and
> > > > >>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample
> of
> > a
> > > > >>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list
> > to
> > > > >>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > > >>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > > > >>>>>2) build system move to ant
> > > > >>>>>(enough there for a release)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data
> > > model.
> > > > >>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal
> > for
> > > > >>>>>that.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Hello all,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next
> > Release
> > > > >>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> > > > >>>>>>xt+R
> > > > >>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also,
> what's
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the
> changes?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > > >>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > > >>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > > >>>>>>roadmap]
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > > >>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like
> > making
> > > > >>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to
> test
> > > > >>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained
> > and
> > > > >>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a
> unit
> > > > >>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this
> > (use
> > > > >>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > > > >>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> > > > >>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles
> > and
> > > > >>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from
> > > source
> > > > >>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so
> it
> > > can
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on
> > > automake
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
> > projects.
> > > > >>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it
> > > ;-) ...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe
> an
> > > ant
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with
> > that.
> > > > >>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build
> > > would
> > > > >>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > >>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > >>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > roadmap]
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next
> > SCA
> > > > >>>>>>>Native release.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around
> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>bit and
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > > > >>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I
> > was
> > > > >>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the
> 1.0C++
> > > > >>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>elaborate?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this.
> I'm
> > > all
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>for
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> > > > >>>>>>>>changes to
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>ok
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > > >>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > >>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>--
> > > > >>>>>>>Pete
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and test tool
outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work?
On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> derivative work.
>
> So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot
> distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was
> looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (, but
> I
> found this 2:
>
> http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
> http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
>
> Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell for
> sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
>
> Regards,
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> > discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> > to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> > derivative work.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people what
> > > tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having a
> > > list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Simon,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to
> > distribute
> > > > the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on the
> > web site
> > > > I could be helpful :)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Adriano Crestani
> > > >
> > > > On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany
> release?
> > > >>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see
> some
> > > >>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for
> people
> > > >>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > > >>
> > > >> Simon
> > > >>
> > > >>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and
> don't
> > > >>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to
> > modify
> > > >>
> > > >>the
> > > >>
> > > >>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> > modifications
> > > >>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another
> > text
> > > >>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I
> > really
> > > >>
> > > >>dont
> > > >>
> > > >>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source
> > C/C++
> > > >>>unit test tools on [1].
> > > >>>
> > > >>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Regards,
> > > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I
> updated
> > the
> > > >>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> > > >>>>elease+Contents
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > >>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > > >>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > > >>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > roadmap]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started
> and
> > > >>>>user
> > > >>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between
> Native
> > and
> > > >>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of
> a
> > > >>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list
> to
> > > >>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > > >>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > > >>>>>2) build system move to ant
> > > >>>>>(enough there for a release)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data
> > model.
> > > >>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal
> for
> > > >>>>>that.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Cheers,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Hello all,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next
> Release
> > > >>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> > > >>>>>>xt+R
> > > >>>>>>elease+Contents
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's
> > the
> > > >>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > >>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > >>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > >>>>>>roadmap]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > >>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like
> making
> > > >>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> > > >>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained
> and
> > > >>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
> > > >>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this
> (use
> > > >>>>>>cppunit?)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > > >>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> > > >>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles
> and
> > > >>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from
> > source
> > > >>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it
> > can
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on
> > automake
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source
> projects.
> > > >>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it
> > ;-) ...
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an
> > ant
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with
> that.
> > > >>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build
> > would
> > > >>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > >>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > >>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> roadmap]
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next
> SCA
> > > >>>>>>>Native release.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
> > > >>>>>>>>bit and
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > > >>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I
> was
> > > >>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0C++
> > > >>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>elaborate?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm
> > all
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>>for
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> > > >>>>>>>>changes to
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>ok
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>sounds good.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>--------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > > >>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > >>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>--
> > > >>>>>>>Pete
> > > >>>>>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
derivative work.
So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot
distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was
looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (, but I
found this 2:
http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/
Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell for
sure if they are compatible with ASF license.
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
> discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
> to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
> derivative work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people what
> > tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having a
> > list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > Adriano Crestani wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to
> distribute
> > > the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on the
> web site
> > > I could be helpful :)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Adriano Crestani
> > >
> > > On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany release?
> > >>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see some
> > >>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for people
> > >>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> > >>
> > >> Simon
> > >>
> > >>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and don't
> > >>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to
> modify
> > >>
> > >>the
> > >>
> > >>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the
> modifications
> > >>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another
> text
> > >>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I
> really
> > >>
> > >>dont
> > >>
> > >>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source
> C/C++
> > >>>unit test tools on [1].
> > >>>
> > >>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> > >>>
> > >>>Regards,
> > >>>Adriano Crestani
> > >>>
> > >>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated
> the
> > >>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> > >>>>elease+Contents
> > >>>>
> > >>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--------------------
> > >>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > >>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> > >>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> > >>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> roadmap]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and
> > >>>>user
> > >>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native
> and
> > >>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
> > >>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
> > >>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > >>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > >>>>>2) build system move to ant
> > >>>>>(enough there for a release)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data
> model.
> > >>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
> > >>>>>that.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Hello all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
> > >>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> > >>>>>>xt+R
> > >>>>>>elease+Contents
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's
> the
> > >>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > >>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > >>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > >>>>>>roadmap]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > >>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> > >>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> > >>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
> > >>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
> > >>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
> > >>>>>>cppunit?)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > >>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> > >>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and
> > >>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from
> source
> > >>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it
> can
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on
> automake
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects.
> > >>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it
> ;-) ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an
> ant
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that.
> > >>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build
> would
> > >>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > >>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> > >>>>>>>Native release.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
> > >>>>>>>>bit and
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > >>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> > >>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++
> > >>>>>>>C&I spec version
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> > >>>>
> > >>>>elaborate?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm
> all
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>for
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> > >>>>>>>>changes to
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>ok
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>sounds good.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>--------------------
> > >>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> > >>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > >>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>--
> > >>>>>>>Pete
> > >>>>>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been
discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code
to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a
derivative work.
Cheers,
On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people what
> tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having a
> list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
>
> Simon
>
> Adriano Crestani wrote:
>
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to distribute
> > the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on the web site
> > I could be helpful :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adriano Crestani
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany release?
> >>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see some
> >>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for people
> >>who build the source to download the tool separately.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >>Adriano Crestani wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and don't
> >>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to modify
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the modifications
> >>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another text
> >>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I really
> >>
> >>dont
> >>
> >>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source C/C++
> >>>unit test tools on [1].
> >>>
> >>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Adriano Crestani
> >>>
> >>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated the
> >>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> >>>>elease+Contents
> >>>>
> >>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
> >>>>
> >>>>--------------------
> >>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> >>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> >>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> >>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >>>>
> >>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and
> >>>>user
> >>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> >>>>
> >>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native and
> >>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
> >>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
> >>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> >>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> >>>>>2) build system move to ant
> >>>>>(enough there for a release)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
> >>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
> >>>>>that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Cheers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hello all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
> >>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> >>>>>>xt+R
> >>>>>>elease+Contents
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
> >>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> >>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> >>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> >>>>>>roadmap]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> >>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> >>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> >>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
> >>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
> >>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
> >>>>>>cppunit?)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> >>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> >>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and
> >>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source
> >>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can
> >>>>
> >>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake
> >>>>
> >>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects.
> >>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant
> >>>>
> >>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that.
> >>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build would
> >>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> >>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> >>>>>>>Native release.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
> >>>>>>>>bit and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> >>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> >>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++
> >>>>>>>C&I spec version
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> >>>>
> >>>>elaborate?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>for
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> >>>>>>>>changes to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>ok
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>sounds good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Cheers,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--
> >>>>>>>Pete
> >>>>>>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people what
tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having a
list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful.
Simon
Adriano Crestani wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to distribute
> the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on the web site
> I could be helpful :)
>
> Regards,
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany release?
>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see some
>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for people
>>who build the source to download the tool separately.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>Adriano Crestani wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and don't
>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to modify
>>
>>the
>>
>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the modifications
>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another text
>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I really
>>
>>dont
>>
>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source C/C++
>>>unit test tools on [1].
>>>
>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Adriano Crestani
>>>
>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated the
>>>>wiki with a documentation feature.
>>>>
>>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
>>>>elease+Contents
>>>>
>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
>>>>
>>>>--------------------
>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>>>>
>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and
>>>>user
>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
>>>>
>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native and
>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
>>>>>2) build system move to ant
>>>>>(enough there for a release)
>>>>>
>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
>>>>>that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
>>>>>>xt+R
>>>>>>elease+Contents
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
>>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
>>>>>>roadmap]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
>>>>>>cppunit?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
>>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and
>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source
>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can
>>>>
>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake
>>>>
>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects.
>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ...
>>>>
>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant
>>>>
>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that.
>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build would
>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
>>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
>>>>>>>Native release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
>>>>>>>>bit and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
>>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++
>>>>>>>C&I spec version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
>>>>
>>>>elaborate?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all
>>>>
>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>simplifying the build though!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
>>>>>>>>changes to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ok
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>sounds good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
>>>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Pete
>>>>>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi Simon,
Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to distribute
the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on the web site
I could be helpful :)
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany release?
> If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see some
> justification for this, but even then it would be possible for people
> who build the source to download the tool separately.
>
> Simon
>
> Adriano Crestani wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and don't
> > distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to modify
> the
> > code from a release would want to test it, to check if the modifications
> > does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another text
> > unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I really
> dont
> > know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source C/C++
> > unit test tools on [1].
> >
> > [1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adriano Crestani
> >
> > On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated the
> >>wiki with a documentation feature.
> >>
> >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> >>elease+Contents
> >>
> >>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
> >>
> >>--------------------
> >>Brady Johnson
> >>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> >>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> >>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> >>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >>
> >>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and
> >>user
> >>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
> >>
> >>Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native and
> >>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
> >>composite which include C++ and Java components.
> >>
> >>
> >>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
> >>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
> >>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> >>>2) build system move to ant
> >>>(enough there for a release)
> >>>
> >>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
> >>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
> >>>that.
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Hello all,
> >>>>
> >>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
> >>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> >>>>xt+R
> >>>>elease+Contents
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
> >>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--------------------
> >>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> >>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> >>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> >>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> >>>>roadmap]
> >>>>
> >>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> >>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> >>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> >>>>
> >>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> >>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
> >>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
> >>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
> >>>>cppunit?)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> >>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> >>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and
> >>>>>they're horrendous. :)
> >>>>
> >>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source
> >>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can
> >>
> >>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake
> >>
> >>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects.
> >>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ...
> >>
> >>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant
> >>
> >>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that.
> >>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build would
> >>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> >>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> >>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> >>>>>Native release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
> >>>>>>bit and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> >>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> >>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++
> >>>>>C&I spec version
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> >>
> >>elaborate?
> >>
> >>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all
> >>
> >>>>>for
> >>>>
> >>>>>simplifying the build though!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> >>>>>>changes to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>ok
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>sounds good.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>--------------------
> >>>>>>Brady Johnson
> >>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> >>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Cheers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--
> >>>>>Pete
> >>>>>
> >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>--- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Pete
> >>>>
> >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Pete
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany release?
If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see some
justification for this, but even then it would be possible for people
who build the source to download the tool separately.
Simon
Adriano Crestani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and don't
> distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to modify the
> code from a release would want to test it, to check if the modifications
> does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another text
> unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I really dont
> know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source C/C++
> unit test tools on [1].
>
> [1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
>
> Regards,
> Adriano Crestani
>
> On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated the
>>wiki with a documentation feature.
>>
>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
>>elease+Contents
>>
>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
>>
>>--------------------
>>Brady Johnson
>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>>
>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and
>>user
>>doc) to help new people come on board faster?
>>
>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native and
>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
>>composite which include C++ and Java components.
>>
>>
>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
>>>justify a release. My priorities would be:
>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
>>>2) build system move to ant
>>>(enough there for a release)
>>>
>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
>>>that.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hello all,
>>>>
>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
>>>>xt+R
>>>>elease+Contents
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--------------------
>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
>>>>Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
>>>>roadmap]
>>>>
>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
>>>>
>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
>>>>cppunit?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and
>>>>>they're horrendous. :)
>>>>
>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source
>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can
>>
>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake
>>
>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects.
>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ...
>>
>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant
>>
>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that.
>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build would
>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>>>>>
>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
>>>>>Native release.
>>>>>
>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
>>>>>>bit and
>>>>>
>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
>>>>>
>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++
>>>>>C&I spec version
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make
>>>>>
>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
>>
>>elaborate?
>>
>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all
>>
>>>>>for
>>>>
>>>>>simplifying the build though!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
>>>>>>changes to
>>>>>
>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
>>>>>
>>>>>ok
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
>>>>>
>>>>>sounds good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------
>>>>>>Brady Johnson
>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
>>>>>>brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Pete
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>--- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Pete
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Pete
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Adriano Crestani <ad...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and don't
distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to modify the
code from a release would want to test it, to check if the modifications
does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another text
unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I really dont
know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source C/C++
unit test tools on [1].
[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php
Regards,
Adriano Crestani
On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated the
> wiki with a documentation feature.
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> elease+Contents
>
> What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and
> user
> doc) to help new people come on board faster?
>
> Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native and
> Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
> composite which include C++ and Java components.
>
>
> On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
> > justify a release. My priorities would be:
> > 1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> > 2) build system move to ant
> > (enough there for a release)
> >
> > We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
> > It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
> > that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
> > > Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> > > xt+R
> > > elease+Contents
> > >
> > >
> > > Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
> > > Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > Brady Johnson
> > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > > roadmap]
> > >
> > > On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > > - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> > > > changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> > >
> > > We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> > > changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
> > > should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
> > > test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
> > > cppunit?)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > > > Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> > > > process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and
> > > > they're horrendous. :)
> > >
> > > Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source
> > > on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can
>
> > > build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake
>
> > > as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects.
> > > In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ...
>
> > > and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant
>
> > > based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that.
> > > Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build would
> > > look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------
> > > > Brady Johnson
> > > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > > Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> > > >
> > > > We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> > > > Native release.
> > > >
> > > > On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
> > > > > bit and
> > > >
> > > > > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > > > > TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> > > > > curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > > Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++
> > > > C&I spec version
> > > >
> > > > > - Move to ant instead of make
> > > > I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
> elaborate?
> > > > Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all
>
> > > > for
> > >
> > > > simplifying the build though!
> > > >
> > > > > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> > > > > changes to
> > > >
> > > > > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > > ok
> > > >
> > > > > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > > > sounds good.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------
> > > > > Brady Johnson
> > > > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > > brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pete
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>.
Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated the
wiki with a documentation feature.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
elease+Contents
What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features?
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and
user
doc) to help new people come on board faster?
Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native and
Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
composite which include C++ and Java components.
On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
> justify a release. My priorities would be:
> 1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> 2) build system move to ant
> (enough there for a release)
>
> We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
> It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
> that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
> > Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> >
> >
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne
> > xt+R
> > elease+Contents
> >
> >
> > Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
> > Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany
> > roadmap]
> >
> > On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> > > changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> >
> > We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> > changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
> > should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit
> > test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
> > cppunit?)
> >
> > >
> > > I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > > Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build
> > > process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and
> > > they're horrendous. :)
> >
> > Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source
> > on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can
> > build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake
> > as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects.
> > In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ...
> > and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant
> > based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that.
> > Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build would
> > look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> >
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > Brady Johnson
> > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> > >
> > > We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> > > Native release.
> > >
> > > On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a
> > > > bit and
> > >
> > > > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > > > TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> > > > curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > >
> > > > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++
> > > C&I spec version
> > >
> > > > - Move to ant instead of make
> > > I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you
elaborate?
> > > Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all
> > > for
> >
> > > simplifying the build though!
> > >
> > > > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight
> > > > changes to
> > >
> > > > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > ok
> > >
> > > > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > > sounds good.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------
> > > > Brady Johnson
> > > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software -
> > > > brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and user
doc) to help new people come on board faster?
Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native and
Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a
composite which include C++ and Java components.
On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
> justify a release. My priorities would be:
> 1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
> 2) build system move to ant
> (enough there for a release)
>
> We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
> It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
> that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
> > Contents, which will probably be called M4.
> >
> >
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> > elease+Contents
> >
> >
> > Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
> > Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >
> > On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > > - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> > > changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
> >
> > We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> > changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
> > should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit test
> > suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
> > cppunit?)
> >
> > >
> > > I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > > Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build process
> > > using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and they're
> > > horrendous. :)
> >
> > Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source on
> > windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can build
> > with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake as it
> > seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects. In doing
> > this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ... and as you
> > say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant based build
> > would be better then I'll happily go along with that. Perhaps you could
> > start this off by showing us what the build would look like for, say,
> > cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
> >
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > Brady Johnson
> > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > > Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> > >
> > > We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> > > Native release.
> > >
> > > On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit
> > > > and
> > >
> > > > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > > > TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> > > > curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > > >
> > > > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > > Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I
> > > spec version
> > >
> > > > - Move to ant instead of make
> > > I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate?
> > > Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for
> >
> > > simplifying the build though!
> > >
> > > > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes
> > > > to
> > >
> > > > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > > ok
> > >
> > > > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > > sounds good.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------
> > > > Brady Johnson
> > > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to
justify a release. My priorities would be:
1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp).
2) build system move to ant
(enough there for a release)
We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data model.
It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for
that.
Cheers,
On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
> Contents, which will probably be called M4.
>
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
> elease+Contents
>
>
> Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
> Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
>
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> > I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> > - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> > changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
>
> We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
> changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
> should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit test
> suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
> cppunit?)
>
> >
> > I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> > Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build process
> > using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and they're
> > horrendous. :)
>
> Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source on
> windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can build
> with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake as it
> seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects. In doing
> this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ... and as you
> say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant based build
> would be better then I'll happily go along with that. Perhaps you could
> start this off by showing us what the build would look like for, say,
> cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
>
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
> >
> > We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> > Native release.
> >
> > On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit
> > > and
> >
> > > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > > TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> > > curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> > >
> > > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> > Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I
> > spec version
> >
> > > - Move to ant instead of make
> > I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate?
> > Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for
>
> > simplifying the build though!
> >
> > > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes
> > > to
> >
> > > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> > ok
> >
> > > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> > sounds good.
> >
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > Brady Johnson
> > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
>
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>.
Hello all,
I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
Contents, which will probably be called M4.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
elease+Contents
Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit test
suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
cppunit?)
>
> I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build process
> using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and they're
> horrendous. :)
Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source on
windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can build
with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake as it
seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects. In doing
this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ... and as you
say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant based build
would be better then I'll happily go along with that. Perhaps you could
start this off by showing us what the build would look like for, say,
cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> Native release.
>
> On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit
> > and
>
> > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> > curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> >
> > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I
> spec version
>
> > - Move to ant instead of make
> I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate?
> Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for
> simplifying the build though!
>
> > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes
> > to
>
> > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> ok
>
> > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> sounds good.
>
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
>
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>.
Hello all,
I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
Contents, which will probably be called M4.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R
elease+Contents
Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's the
Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes?
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making
> changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit test
suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
cppunit?)
>
> I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build process
> using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and they're
> horrendous. :)
Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source on
windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can build
with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake as it
seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects. In doing
this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ... and as you
say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant based build
would be better then I'll happily go along with that. Perhaps you could
start this off by showing us what the build would look like for, say,
cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA
> Native release.
>
> On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit
> > and
>
> > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for
> > TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was
> > curious if they had been contemplated yet.
> >
> > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I
> spec version
>
> > - Move to ant instead of make
> I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate?
> Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for
> simplifying the build though!
>
> > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes
> > to
>
> > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> ok
>
> > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> sounds good.
>
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
>
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
> - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making changes
> to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test
changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and
should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit test
suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use
cppunit?)
>
> I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
> Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build process
> using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and they're
> horrendous. :)
Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source on
windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can
build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake
as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects. In
doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ... and
as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant based
build would be better then I'll happily go along with that. Perhaps
you could start this off by showing us what the build would look like
for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
>
> We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA Native
> release.
>
> On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit and
>
> > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for TuscanySCA
> > CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was curious if they
> > had been contemplated yet.
> >
> > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
> Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I
> spec version
>
> > - Move to ant instead of make
> I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate?
> Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for
> simplifying the build though!
>
> > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes to
>
> > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
> ok
>
> > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
> sounds good.
>
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pete
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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
>
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Posted by Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>.
I forgot to mention another one in my previous post:
- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making changes
to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion.
Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build process
using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and they're
horrendous. :)
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA Native
release.
On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
> Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit and
> haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for TuscanySCA
> CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was curious if they
> had been contemplated yet.
>
> - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0
Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I
spec version
> - Move to ant instead of make
I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate?
Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for
simplifying the build though!
> - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes to
> data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage)
ok
> - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded...
sounds good.
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
Cheers,
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-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