You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> on 2007/07/13 17:00:20 UTC
[SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Hello all,
I understand there is an SDO branch created for the SDO 2.1 spec
compliance changes. The SCA code also needs changes made for the SDO
changes, so can we just make an SCA branch where those changes can be
made.
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
The alternative is for us to develop SCA Head against a stable (M3)
version of SDO?
On 13/07/07, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
> changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some
> of the spec changes will cause instability.
>
> I think ongoing development should continue in HEAD so we do not need
> an SCA branch. We just need to ensure that SCA HEAD will compile/run
> against SDO HEAD.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 13/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I understand there is an SDO branch created for the SDO 2.1 spec
> > compliance changes. The SCA code also needs changes made for the SDO
> > changes, so can we just make an SCA branch where those changes can be
> > made.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
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] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
I have applied a change (revision 556081). Now SCA HEAD requires SDO HEAD.
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] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
On 13/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
> There are 2 options here:
>
> 1. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in SDO head and SCA head. This will
> cause SCA head to not compile with SDO M3.
>
> 2. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in an SDO branch and an SCA branch,
> thus allowing SCA head to compile with SDO M3. Then a merge will have to
> be done at some point to get the changes into M4.
>
> The deciding factor is whether or not we ALWAYS want SCA head to compile
> with SDO M3. IMO I don't think this is necessary. It should be
> understood that the SVN Head is changing and that it may not always
> compile 100% with previous releases (M3). If someone wants to compile
> the source code, get either:
> SDO M3 and SCA M3
> -- Or --
> SDO SVN Head and SCA SVN Head
> (efforts should be made that these 2 compile together as often
> as possible, if not always)
>
> That said, I vote for option 1.
>
+1
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:42 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
> changes
>
> The current state is that SCA HEAD will only build against the sdo
> branch or M3. The minor change was renaming IntegerType to IntType which
> I put in the SCA HEAD but then backed out. If everyone agrees that HEAD
> SCA should build against HEAD SDO I will re-apply the change.
>
> 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] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by "Justin Thomas (Contractor)" <jt...@quovadx.com>.
I'm also in favor of option 1. It seems the most logical way to handle
things.
--------------------
Justin Thomas
Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - justin.thomas@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady Johnson [mailto:bjohnson@roguewave.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:42 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: RE: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
changes
There are 2 options here:
1. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in SDO head and SCA head. This will
cause SCA head to not compile with SDO M3.
2. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in an SDO branch and an SCA branch,
thus allowing SCA head to compile with SDO M3. Then a merge will have to
be done at some point to get the changes into M4.
The deciding factor is whether or not we ALWAYS want SCA head to compile
with SDO M3. IMO I don't think this is necessary. It should be
understood that the SVN Head is changing and that it may not always
compile 100% with previous releases (M3). If someone wants to compile
the source code, get either:
SDO M3 and SCA M3
-- Or --
SDO SVN Head and SCA SVN Head
(efforts should be made that these 2 compile together as often
as possible, if not always)
That said, I vote for option 1.
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:42 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
changes
The current state is that SCA HEAD will only build against the sdo
branch or M3. The minor change was renaming IntegerType to IntType which
I put in the SCA HEAD but then backed out. If everyone agrees that HEAD
SCA should build against HEAD SDO I will re-apply the change.
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
RE: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>.
There are 2 options here:
1. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in SDO head and SCA head. This will
cause SCA head to not compile with SDO M3.
2. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in an SDO branch and an SCA branch,
thus allowing SCA head to compile with SDO M3. Then a merge will have to
be done at some point to get the changes into M4.
The deciding factor is whether or not we ALWAYS want SCA head to compile
with SDO M3. IMO I don't think this is necessary. It should be
understood that the SVN Head is changing and that it may not always
compile 100% with previous releases (M3). If someone wants to compile
the source code, get either:
SDO M3 and SCA M3
-- Or --
SDO SVN Head and SCA SVN Head
(efforts should be made that these 2 compile together as often
as possible, if not always)
That said, I vote for option 1.
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:42 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
changes
The current state is that SCA HEAD will only build against the sdo
branch or M3. The minor change was renaming IntegerType to IntType which
I put in the SCA HEAD but then backed out. If everyone agrees that HEAD
SCA should build against HEAD SDO I will re-apply the change.
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
Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
The current state is that SCA HEAD will only build against the sdo
branch or M3. The minor change was renaming IntegerType to IntType
which I put in the SCA HEAD but then backed out. If everyone agrees
that HEAD SCA should build against HEAD SDO I will re-apply the
change.
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] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
Any M4 should be based on HEAD. The pre-sdo21 branch exists here
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo-cpp-pre2.1and
will get bug fixes applied on request. The main user of this is the
PHP SDO-SCA group who need fixes to SDO but not the instability as we
move forward towards a 2.1 compatible version. I do not forsee a
release being built from the branch.
I'm reluctant to create a branch if we can do without it. As I say the
SDO branch is there to support a group who are actively using the
code. I think the stable SCA is M3. If someone needs fixes in M3 but
does not want to use the HEAD version then we may need to consider a
maintenance branch.
On 13/07/07, David Haney <ha...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> So SDO HEAD and SCA HEAD will contain changes related to moving the SDO
> implementation towards compliance with SDO 2.1? And SDO will create a
> branch (PRE-SDO21 or something similar) from the current code base that
> represents the stable pre-SDO 2.1 work? This sounds good to me.
>
> Will there be ongoing work on the PRE-SDO21 branch (bug fixes,
> enhancements etc...)? If so, do we need a stable SCA branch that builds
> against the PRE-SDO21 branch that can take advantage of those changes,
> or is it intended just for stand-alone SDO work?
>
> I guess part of my question is whether the M4 release of either SDO or
> SCA will be based on the PRE-SDO21 branch, or whether both will be
> coming from HEAD.
>
> Thanks.
>
> David.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:45 AM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
> > changes
> >
> > The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
> > changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some
> > of the spec changes will cause instability.
> >
> > I think ongoing development should continue in HEAD so we do not need
> > an SCA branch. We just need to ensure that SCA HEAD will compile/run
> > against SDO HEAD.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 13/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I understand there is an SDO branch created for the SDO 2.1 spec
> > > compliance changes. The SCA code also needs changes made for the SDO
> > > changes, so can we just make an SCA branch where those changes can
> be
> > > made.
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > Brady Johnson
> > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by David Haney <ha...@roguewave.com>.
So SDO HEAD and SCA HEAD will contain changes related to moving the SDO
implementation towards compliance with SDO 2.1? And SDO will create a
branch (PRE-SDO21 or something similar) from the current code base that
represents the stable pre-SDO 2.1 work? This sounds good to me.
Will there be ongoing work on the PRE-SDO21 branch (bug fixes,
enhancements etc...)? If so, do we need a stable SCA branch that builds
against the PRE-SDO21 branch that can take advantage of those changes,
or is it intended just for stand-alone SDO work?
I guess part of my question is whether the M4 release of either SDO or
SCA will be based on the PRE-SDO21 branch, or whether both will be
coming from HEAD.
Thanks.
David.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Robbins [mailto:robbinspg@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:45 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
> changes
>
> The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
> changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some
> of the spec changes will cause instability.
>
> I think ongoing development should continue in HEAD so we do not need
> an SCA branch. We just need to ensure that SCA HEAD will compile/run
> against SDO HEAD.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 13/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I understand there is an SDO branch created for the SDO 2.1 spec
> > compliance changes. The SCA code also needs changes made for the SDO
> > changes, so can we just make an SCA branch where those changes can
be
> > made.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Brady Johnson
> > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> > Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec changes
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some
of the spec changes will cause instability.
I think ongoing development should continue in HEAD so we do not need
an SCA branch. We just need to ensure that SCA HEAD will compile/run
against SDO HEAD.
What do you think?
Cheers,
On 13/07/07, Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I understand there is an SDO branch created for the SDO 2.1 spec
> compliance changes. The SCA code also needs changes made for the SDO
> changes, so can we just make an SCA branch where those changes can be
> made.
>
> --------------------
> Brady Johnson
> Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
> Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
>
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org