RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cheers, -- Pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cheers, -- Pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Cheers, > > -- > Pete > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Cheers, > > -- > Pete > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a > > > > bit and > > > &g
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 i
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-Original Message- > >>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post: > >>>>>- get the test suite up to
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAI
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-Original Message- > >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Hello all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>-Original Message- > > >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>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 sa
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>-Or
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I > > updated &g
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? --
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) Adriano Crestani On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > >>> > >>>&g
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
epends 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>-Original Message- > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>>>>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
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
So who do we have to check with? Brady -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > Adriano Crestani > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So who do we have to check with? > > Brady > > -Original Message- > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > >>>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > Brady > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 &
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adriano Crestani Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > Brady > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/ > > > > >>> > > > > >&g
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Adriano Crestani > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > > > Brady > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > > > > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been > > > > > > >&
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Adriano Crestani > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > > > Brady > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > > > > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 l
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Adriano Crestani > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > > > > > Brady > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap]
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Adriano Crestani > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > > > > > Brady > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007
