Sorry - In my case silence = I usually only watch the top 7 topics
i.e. the ones that show up on the phpsoa google page, and this one had
risen up and fallen below that threshold before I got round to reading
it.
I think it would be an interesting social experiment to see if we can
evolve some pr
Hi Caroline,
Sorry for my silence (other project activities have taken over my life
at the moment). I would like to see this. As someone who commits
less that others and whose brain seems to flush information all to
readily, having the documented processes to refer to would be very
helpful.
Re
On Jun 14, 4:58 pm, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Caroline, would
> > you be prepared to commit what you think the various important things
> > to get right are to a page up on the web site a osoa.org? If you don't
> > have time to do this I could extra
+1 to this idea. In the context of this thread, if I could encourage
you to put you thoughts down about the bug filing and fixing process
that would be excellent.
Simon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think that creating the suggested tests is a good idea. I've seen
> several emails pass by about release process and have to confess that
> I don't remember the details. While I'm not a big fan of being too
> process oriented our build and release is sufficiently comp
Matthew Peters wrote:
> I have just answered your post on 24th May - which I never spotted at
> the time, apologies. There must be another one I have missed since you
> say "either of my requests". Please point me at the one I have missed.
FWIW, it was in a reply sent 8 Jun to a private mail fro
Caroline,
Thanks for the reminder, I have changed the Tuscany defect 1297 to
closed.
I have made a note of the Tuscany level in our DUNLIN page here - I'll
remember to add it to the release notes.
I have just answered your post on 24th May - which I never spotted at
the time, apologies. There m
On 14 Jun, 11:22, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Peters wrote:
> > I have just checked in some changes to the SDO C++ code (thanks, Pete
> > Robbins) and a one-liner to one of the classes in the soap binding
> > which I think fix 11012 and 11004. Both the wsdl and the soap
Matthew Peters wrote:
> I have just checked in some changes to the SDO C++ code (thanks, Pete
> Robbins) and a one-liner to one of the classes in the soap binding
> which I think fix 11012 and 11004. Both the wsdl and the soap messages
> now validate correctly with soapscope and Java Xerces, whi
I have just checked in some changes to the SDO C++ code (thanks, Pete
Robbins) and a one-liner to one of the classes in the soap binding
which I think fix 11012 and 11004. Both the wsdl and the soap messages
now validate correctly with soapscope and Java Xerces, which I think
must be what soapscop
I had a look at all these today. The nub of the problem is that both
#11012 and #11004 point at JIRA #1297. I created the confusion in the
first place when I raised Tuscany JIRA 1297 - I raised the original
JIRA with a title that presupposed what the problem was. Really the
problem is that the WSD
solvable in the PHP code.
Best,
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: phpsoa@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Caroline Maynard
> Sent: June 11, 2007 12:15 PM
> To: phpsoa@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way ou
Michael Caplan wrote:
>
> I'd like to petition to get Bug #11004 (WSDL Generated Does Not
> Validate) and Request #10994 (Business Exceptions Data Returned to
> Client) in this release.
>
> Judging from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sorry not sure who that is) final comment on
> #11004, I think this ticket
I'm happy to take a look at #11004 (everyone else has had a go so it's
probably my turn :-). I see the difference between this and #11012 (I
remember the xsi:type stuff coming up ages ago in Tuscany SDO as
something that was required to get the C++ SCA implentation going - if
I come across any in
Hi Folks,
I'd like to petition to get Bug #11004 (WSDL Generated Does Not
Validate) and Request #10994 (Business Exceptions Data Returned to
Client) in this release.
Judging from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sorry not sure who that is) final comment on
#11004, I think this ticket is being confused with Re
No, sounds like a good idea. I still have some binding documentation
that I want to write but that won't be shipped with the release. Are
there any of bug fixes that we need to get in.
Simon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscrib
16 matches
Mail list logo
