Hi Graham, I have that interest. Where do I start? :) Thanks Silvano
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Silvano, > > Sorry for not replying sooner and not replying to your original note. > I always had in mind to generate documentation in the WSDL from the > methods descriptions, so what you have done is exactly the right idea. > > Thanks also for the patch. I haven't taken a look at the moment. The > SCA_SDO project has a CLA to cover contributions and so far as I'm > aware you've not signed, or been asked to sign it. Is this something > you'd be willing and able to do? I can give you more information in > needed. > > Regards, Graham. > > On 30 May, 17:05, "Silvano Girardi Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since I got no comments, I made it only for methods and not optional. > > > > I've put the patch in the case. > > > > Silvano > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Silvano Girardi Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote: > > >> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >> >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote: > > > > >> >>> is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the > > >> >>> <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's > > >> >>> description in the doc block? > > >> >> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any > > >> volunteers? > > > > >> > I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in > my > > >> spare > > >> > time. > > > > >> > I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are > going > > >> to > > >> > do this. > > >> > Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can > put > > >> > here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how > you > > >> guys > > >> > handle these things). > > > > >> > Anyway, I am a volunteer :) > > > > >> > Silvano > > > > >> Great :-) > > >> Suggest you raise a Feature/Change Request at > > >>http://pecl.php.net/bugs/report.php?package=SCA_SDO. Then when you > have > > >> a proposed patch we can get the relevant committers to review it. > > > > > Ok I just did it:http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=13775 > > > > > Need your thoughts here. > > > > > 1 - should it include the description of the service too (as I put in > the > > > request above), or only for methods? > > > 2 - should it always happen or be optional? If optional, how to handle > > > this? > > > > > Silvano > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "phpsoa" group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
