I added in a few "running tuscany" samples to see if we can get those
right. Things of note:
- There are a small set now. We can complete the set if people are happy
- I've added the minimum function required. So, for example, there is
no ant build/run script under the JSE sample. That would go u
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples
into trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right
w
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples
>>> into trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right
>>>
Luciano Resende wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples
into trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right
way).
+1, And this might really be the reason for having this whole
di
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples
> into trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right
> way).
+1, And this might really be the reason for having this whole
discussion. In Tuscany,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>
>>> Also in [1], I said that a new sample that doesn't yet meet the mandatory
>>> release requirements should go in unreleased/ initially. AFAICT, the
>>> store
>>> sam
It looks like in the end there's been a misunderstanding about the process.
Personally, I would like to have a "review first" approach as it helps
improving the code quality over time but that doesn't seem to work for us so
it's ok to move forward with the previous approach. Glad we're all speaking
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples
> into trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right
> way).
> Thanks,
> Raymond
I agree. Its been interesting trying the alternative approach but
I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples into
trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right way).
Thanks,
Raymond
Raymond Feng
rf...@apache.org
Apache Tuscany PMC member and
ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Also in [1], I said that a new sample that doesn't yet meet the mandatory
release requirements should go in unreleased/ initially. AFAICT, the store
sample does meet the mandatory release requirements, so I'm not sure why
it w
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
> Also in [1], I said that a new sample that doesn't yet meet the mandatory
> release requirements should go in unreleased/ initially. AFAICT, the store
> sample does meet the mandatory release requirements, so I'm not sure why
> it was moved to
Luciano Resende wrote:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:10 PM, ant elder wrote:
Luciano, you still haven't really said what it is you would like to
see done to get a release you'd be ok with. What we decided to do was
move all the samples out of trunk start cleaning them up and move them
back with con
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:10 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Luciano, you still haven't really said what it is you would like to
> see done to get a release you'd be ok with. What we decided to do was
> move all the samples out of trunk start cleaning them up and move them
> back with consensus, ie email a
Luciano, you still haven't really said what it is you would like to
see done to get a release you'd be ok with. What we decided to do was
move all the samples out of trunk start cleaning them up and move them
back with consensus, ie email asking what people think could be
changed or fixed and when
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:32 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:59 PM, ant elder wrote:
I'd add the expectations and/or user experience when running the
samples, as it seems that we are droping support for ant compl
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:59 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> I'd add the expectations and/or user experience when running the
>>> samples, as it seems that we are droping support for ant completely
>>> (which to me is ok, as I mostly use maven), bu
Hi, Luciano.
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, that's what I meant to say.
In the real world, we use Tuscany in many different environments, such as
command line, Eclipse, JUnit, OSGi, Web applications (application-scoped or
servlet scoped). Having the samples to represent some of the typi
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:12 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>> IMO, we shouldn't even try to use one "consistent" way to launch Tuscany in
>> the samples. I don't like the magic plugin approach. The whole idea of
>> Tuscany/SCA is to adapt to whatever
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:59 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> I'd add the expectations and/or user experience when running the
>> samples, as it seems that we are droping support for ant completely
>> (which to me is ok, as I mostly use maven), but I'm not sure if users
>> are ok with that.
>>
>
> At least
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> IMO, we shouldn't even try to use one "consistent" way to launch Tuscany in
> the samples. I don't like the magic plugin approach. The whole idea of
> Tuscany/SCA is to adapt to whatever technology/container people use instead
> of reinvent
IMO, we shouldn't even try to use one "consistent" way to launch Tuscany in the
samples. I don't like the magic plugin approach. The whole idea of Tuscany/SCA
is to adapt to whatever technology/container people use instead of reinventing
the wheels. Think about Spring, there is no mandatory way
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:32 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>> Replying to that now quite old email...
>>>
>>> As you asked about this i had a go at adding support to the Tuscany
>>> plugin to support that and there is now some initial code that
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:32 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> Replying to that now quite old email...
>>
>> As you asked about this i had a go at adding support to the Tuscany
>> plugin to support that and there is now some initial code that seems
>> to work. So if you add the pom.xml of a webapp project
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:16 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Florian Moga wrote:
>>> How does the shell operate with webapps?
>>
>> Presently it doesn't, for the webapp samples you have to run them in
>> some server, so e
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:16 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Florian Moga wrote:
>> How does the shell operate with webapps?
>
> Presently it doesn't, for the webapp samples you have to run them in
> some server, so either deploy them to your appserver or some of them
> have
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:22 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
Doesn't that just mean that we need to separate the binary samples
distribution from the binary runtime distribution that users use to
run them.
>>>
>>> We did talk abou
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
>>>
>>> Doesn't that just mean that we need to separate the binary samples
>>> distribution from the binary runtime distribution that users use to
>>> run them.
>>>
>>
>> We did talk about having a sample distribution earlier in the thread.
>> I g
>>
>> Doesn't that just mean that we need to separate the binary samples
>> distribution from the binary runtime distribution that users use to
>> run them.
>>
>
> We did talk about having a sample distribution earlier in the thread.
> I guess whether or not we do ever release a separate sample
> d
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>
>> I meant to add, if working offline using local artifacts is
>> useful/important then i wonder if that should also be p
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
>
> I meant to add, if working offline using local artifacts is
> useful/important then i wonder if that should also be possible with
> the Maven builds in the binary dist
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
I meant to add, if working offline using local artifacts is
useful/important then i wonder if that should also be possible with
the Maven builds in the binary distribution. It might be nice if
both
the
ant elder wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:12 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM,
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:12 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>> ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 1
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:12 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>> ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Fri,
I understand your concerns related to the documentation we ship. In this
case I'm thinking how a README file should look like? First thing that pops
into my mind is that all READMEs should have a consistent feel and probably
include the same topics like:
- running the sample
- short presentatio
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>>
>>> ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>
>> Act
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:09 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> FWIW i've now added an Ant build.xml to the helloworld sample at:
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/unr
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> FWIW i've now added an Ant build.xml to the helloworld sample at:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/unreleased/samples/helloworld-contribution/.
>>
>> That bui
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
> FWIW i've now added an Ant build.xml to the helloworld sample at:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/unreleased/samples/helloworld-contribution/.
>
> That build does not use jars from a binary distribution but instea
FWIW i've now added an Ant build.xml to the helloworld sample at:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/unreleased/samples/helloworld-contribution/.
That build does not use jars from a binary distribution but instead
the build script downloads the necessary jars itself.
No
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Mike Edwards
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Comments inline...
>
> On 28/02/2011 11:40, Simon Laws wrote:
>>
>> I was initially assuming that we would retain a way for users to
>> (re-)compile sample contributions from the source provided in the
>> binary distribution. The co
Folks,
Comments inline...
On 28/02/2011 11:40, Simon Laws wrote:
I was initially assuming that we would retain a way for users to
(re-)compile sample contributions from the source provided in the
binary distribution. The complicating factor in these conversations
seems to be Maven as it leads
On 24/02/2011 14:28, Florian Moga wrote:
I was thinking that if we use blogging as the primary way of describing
samples, it's not even
necessary to include a README in each and every sample, people can just search
the blog knowing that
information will be there (I'm trying to keep things as si
On 28/02/2011 09:58, ant elder wrote:
It might be worth looking at what the binary distribution is actually
for though, perhaps not in this thread so it doesn't bog down the
sample discussion. The binary distribution isn't used by any of the
Maven builds of the samples or running them.
...
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:58 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:07 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws
>>> wrote:
>>>
I wonder whether we need the ability to run from maven at all. W
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:07 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder whether we need the ability to run from maven at all. We need
>>> a way for people to compile samples of course. I
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:07 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder whether we need the ability to run from maven at all. We need
>> a way for people to compile samples of course. I've be happy with the
>> following.
>>
>> 1 - use the shell
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
>
> I wonder whether we need the ability to run from maven at all. We need
> a way for people to compile samples of course. I've be happy with the
> following.
>
> 1 - use the shell as the primary out of the box mechanism for
> loading/running s
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
> Florian Moga wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking that if we use blogging as the primary way of describing
>> samples, it's not even necessary to include a README in each and every
>> sample, people can just search the blog knowing that information will
Florian Moga wrote:
I was thinking that if we use blogging as the primary way of describing
samples, it's not even necessary to include a README in each and every
sample, people can just search the blog knowing that information will be
there (I'm trying to keep things as simple and interactive
I was thinking that if we use blogging as the primary way of describing
samples, it's not even necessary to include a README in each and every
sample, people can just search the blog knowing that information will be
there (I'm trying to keep things as simple and interactive as possible -- to
be hon
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Florian Moga wrote:
> Yes, I was thinking that in this case READMEs would only contain some
> instructions on how to start the shell so it will basically be the same
> README copied in each and every folder.
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:02 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>
Yes, I was thinking that in this case READMEs would only contain some
instructions on how to start the shell so it will basically be the same
README copied in each and every folder.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:02 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
> > As f
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
> As for doc, what do you think about the following idea? As soon as a sample
> graduates from contrib/ we can write a blog post explaining various things
> about it. It's much more interactive for both users and us. Also, the blog
> will probab
As for doc, what do you think about the following idea? As soon as a sample
graduates from contrib/ we can write a blog post explaining various things
about it. It's much more interactive for both users and us. Also, the blog
will probably get more attention and would be more complete. In this case
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:46 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> The main differences are that the testcase doesn't run Tuscany and the
> Tuscany plugin isn't defined in the pom.xml.
I think having a unit test that starts the Tuscany runtime has multiple
benefits:
- more helpful for the newbie user (he
> Re the doc, what sort of thing do we want? I don't think what we tried
> with the beta1 release with having the sample doc only on the Tuscany
> website worked that well, so these samples just have a plain text
> README file. What could be done differently or better over that?
>
> ...ant
>
I a
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
I have now done these. There's a beta2 branch for the release, and all
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have now done these. There's a beta2 branch for the release, and all
>>> the trunk samples are now in contrib/samples and the he
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>>
>> I have now done these. There's a beta2 branch for the release, and all
>> the trunk samples are now in contrib/samples and the helloworld sample
>> is in unreleased/samples where we can c
ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
Actually I would wonder what is the point of using maven to generate
an ant script that does exactly t
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>>
>> I have now done these. There's a beta2 branch for the release, and all
>> the trunk samples are now in contrib/samples and the helloworld sample
>> is in unreleased/samples where we can c
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> I have now done these. There's a beta2 branch for the release, and all
> the trunk samples are now in contrib/samples and the helloworld sample
> is in unreleased/samples where we can continuing with making it like
> we want.
>
So how do we p
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>
Actually I would wonder what is the point of using maven to generate
an ant script that does exa
ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
Actually I would wonder what is the point of using maven to generate
an ant script that does exactly the same as the maven build.
In 1.x the ant scripts were provided as a
ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
I'm not keen into having an ant build file in every sample. If someone
wants
to use ant, shouldn't they download all dependencies manually? Won't they
u
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
>> Actually I would wonder what is the point of using maven to generate
>> an ant script that does exactly the same as the maven build.
>>
>> In 1.x the ant scripts were provided as an alterna
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not keen into having an ant build file in every sample. If someone
>>> wants
>>> to use ant, shouldn't they download all dependencies manually? Won't they
>
ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
I'm not keen into having an ant build file in every sample. If someone wants
to use ant, shouldn't they download all dependencies manually? Won't they
use maven for that task anyway? What about ivy?
I've been thinking th
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
> I'm not keen into having an ant build file in every sample. If someone wants
> to use ant, shouldn't they download all dependencies manually? Won't they
> use maven for that task anyway? What about ivy?
>
I've been thinking the same thing l
>From my latest experience I'd go with 2 required launchers for the samples:
1. the tuscany shell - it's so easy to start with 'mvn tuscany:run' or with
the provided scripts. The fact that you can interactively invoke deployed
services has a huge plus for user experience. One mention would be that
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:18 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:58 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
Maybe it's time to take a decision so we all know where we're heading. From
>>>
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Florian Moga wrote:
> How does the shell operate with webapps? I've tried loading
> helloworld-webapp with mvn tuscany:run and I got a ClassNotFoundException on
> a jetty related class. I've added jetty dependencies to the shell module and
> now i'm getting:
>
> F
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Florian Moga wrote:
> How does the shell operate with webapps?
Presently it doesn't, for the webapp samples you have to run them in
some server, so either deploy them to your appserver or some of them
have the Jetty or Tomcat plugin in their pom.xml so you can run
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Florian Moga wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:18 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> Ok so views on both sides, to move this along how about:
>>
>> - take a branch from current trunk for the beta2 RC3, maybe or not I
>> or someone will actually go ahead and do the work to
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:18 PM, ant elder wrote:
>
> Ok so views on both sides, to move this along how about:
>
> - take a branch from current trunk for the beta2 RC3, maybe or not I
> or someone will actually go ahead and do the work to make a release
> from that branch
>
Does this mean that sam
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:58 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
>>> Maybe it's time to take a decision so we all know where we're heading. From
>>> what I see we've got 2 options:
>>> 1/ do the release
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:58 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
>> Maybe it's time to take a decision so we all know where we're heading. From
>> what I see we've got 2 options:
>> 1/ do the release now according to Mike's suggestion
>> 2/ discuss document
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
> Maybe it's time to take a decision so we all know where we're heading. From
> what I see we've got 2 options:
> 1/ do the release now according to Mike's suggestion
> 2/ discuss documentation and sample structure and launchers, review and
> up
Maybe it's time to take a decision so we all know where we're heading. From
what I see we've got 2 options:
1/ do the release now according to Mike's suggestion
2/ discuss documentation and sample structure and launchers, review and
update all samples accordingly, do the release
I tend to go with
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Florian Moga wrote:
> I gave it a try and it found the same problem. It looks like it is not
> expected that the junit jar to be specified amongst dependencies but in the
> $ANT_HOME/lib folder... I've added the build.test.classpath to the
> test-junit-present targe
How does the shell operate with webapps? I've tried loading
helloworld-webapp with mvn tuscany:run and I got a ClassNotFoundException on
a jetty related class. I've added jetty dependencies to the shell module and
now i'm getting:
Feb 7, 2011 8:33:48 PM
org.apache.tuscany.sca.core.runtime.impl.End
I gave it a try and it found the same problem. It looks like it is not
expected that the junit jar to be specified amongst dependencies but in the
$ANT_HOME/lib folder... I've added the build.test.classpath to the
test-junit-present target and tests are working now.
After that, a
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Florian MOGA wrote:
> I've just checked out "mvn ant:ant" and seems to do a decent job in
> generating an ant build file.
I didn't know about "mvn ant:ant" that does look good. I haven't quite
got it to work properly yet though, if i run "mvn ant:ant" in
getting-s
On 07/02/2011 12:05, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
I think we're in violent agreement here! Let's pick a small and
useful set of high-quality samples to include in the release, then
make sure (by automated tests as far as possible) that these samples
cont
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Florian Moga wrote:
> I totally agree but in my estimation this operation requires at least one or
> two weeks of work and we haven't agreed yet on the format of the
> documentation and what are the required launchers. We're already in RC2,
> can't we just make the
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
>>
I do agree good quality samples are important for users though. Maybe
if we have this more strict quality approach then we also need to do
some vetting o
I totally agree but in my estimation this operation requires at least one or
two weeks of work and we haven't agreed yet on the format of the
documentation and what are the required launchers. We're already in RC2,
can't we just make the release with the samples as they are now (without the
ones th
> I think we're in violent agreement here! Let's pick a small and
> useful set of high-quality samples to include in the release, then
> make sure (by automated tests as far as possible) that these samples
> continue to work in future releases. All other samples would go
> somewhere else in svn (
ant elder wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
I do agree good quality samples are important for users though. Maybe
if we have this more strict quality approach then we also need to do
some vetting of what goes into samples so there isn't so many of them
and try to includ
On 05/02/2011 09:51, Florian MOGA wrote:
Thank you for the information Ant. I was wondering more about the checks each
developer is doing
before voting a +1. I'd like to choose a set of checks to perform myself when a
vote is called but I
can't think of tests other than the ones that I stated e
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
>> I do agree good quality samples are important for users though. Maybe
>> if we have this more strict quality approach then we also need to do
>> some vetting of what goes into samples so there isn't so many of them
>> and try to include just a
ant elder wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Florian MOGA wrote:
I've just checked out "mvn ant:ant" and seems to do a decent job in
generating an ant build file.
Figuring out what should samples look like imply taking other decisions
first (how will documentation look li
Just to be clear, I'm totally +1 for doing major and minor releases. My
comment above was related to Simon's concern about how many samples are
actually working and isn't contrary to the major/minor approach. Fixing the
trivial ones shouldn't require more than a few days. Is it ok to spin RC3 on
We
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
> Florian MOGA wrote:
>>
>> I've just checked out "mvn ant:ant" and seems to do a decent job in
>> generating an ant build file.
>> Figuring out what should samples look like imply taking other decisions
>> first (how will documentation look like,
Florian MOGA wrote:
I've just checked out "mvn ant:ant" and seems to do a decent job in
generating an ant build file.
Figuring out what should samples look like imply taking other decisions
first (how will documentation look like, what type of launcher is
required, ...). So, for now I'd sugge
I've just checked out "mvn ant:ant" and seems to do a decent job in
generating an ant build file.
Figuring out what should samples look like imply taking other decisions
first (how will documentation look like, what type of launcher is required,
...). So, for now I'd suggest to temporarily move th
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
> Florian MOGA wrote:
>>
>> Current naming with beta isn't that flexible. We could continue doing a
>> lot of betaX releases or start naming betaX.X. I'm fine with both of them.
>> After we get 2.0 out we can start having 2.0.1, 2.0.2 ... 2.1, 2.1
Florian MOGA wrote:
Current naming with beta isn't that flexible. We could continue doing a
lot of betaX releases or start naming betaX.X. I'm fine with both of
them. After we get 2.0 out we can start having 2.0.1, 2.0.2 ... 2.1,
2.1.1, , 2.2 and things will get more obvious.
Regarding sa
Current naming with beta isn't that flexible. We could continue doing a lot
of betaX releases or start naming betaX.X. I'm fine with both of them. After
we get 2.0 out we can start having 2.0.1, 2.0.2 ... 2.1, 2.1.1, , 2.2
and things will get more obvious.
Regarding samples, we can either move
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
