Re: [PROPOSAL] Automate itests for WAR packaging

2008-02-03 Thread ant elder
On Feb 1, 2008 5:41 PM, Raymond Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, (Sorry for the long text, I make it availabe on our WIKI too: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Automation+of+itests+in+web+applications ). In our WAR packaging scheme, we package SCA artifacts with

Re: Distribution zips and what they contain, was: SCA runtimes

2008-02-03 Thread ant elder
On Feb 2, 2008 3:23 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Edwards wrote: [snip] Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide: - smaller packages - easier for people to find what they need I agree with the objectives. The

Re: Graduation next steps

2008-02-03 Thread Giorgio Zoppi
2008/2/3, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There's a lot i think the project could do to encourage others to participate, here's a few things I can think of - We have a lot of downloads and real users, we need to try to get more of these people engaged and contributing, things

Re: Tuscany Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating and new Incubator distribution policy

2008-02-03 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On Feb 1, 2008 4:00 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi The Tuscany project is now ready to distribute its Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating. Following up from Robert's recent post to the Tuscany dev list [1] I am posting here before proceeding to copy the artifacts up to

Re: Tuscany Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating and new Incubator distribution policy

2008-02-03 Thread sebb
On 03/02/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 1, 2008 4:00 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi The Tuscany project is now ready to distribute its Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating. Following up from Robert's recent post to the Tuscany dev list [1] I am

Re: Tuscany Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating and new Incubator distribution policy

2008-02-03 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On Feb 3, 2008 3:10 PM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 03/02/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 1, 2008 4:00 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi The Tuscany project is now ready to distribute its Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating. Following up from

Re: Tuscany Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating and new Incubator distribution policy

2008-02-03 Thread Simon Laws
On Feb 3, 2008 12:31 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 1, 2008 4:00 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi The Tuscany project is now ready to distribute its Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating. Following up from Robert's recent post to the Tuscany dev list

Re: Tuscany Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating and new Incubator distribution policy

2008-02-03 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On Feb 3, 2008 3:53 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We know how we want our distribution directories structured (see start of thread). great There is a draft release page here ( http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/SCA+Java+1.1-incubating). I'd appreciate it if you

Re: Tuscany Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating and new Incubator distribution policy

2008-02-03 Thread Simon Laws
Thanks for the speedy feedback. On Feb 3, 2008 4:55 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 3, 2008 3:53 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We know how we want our distribution directories structured (see start of thread). great There is a draft release

Re: Tuscany Java SCA Release 1.1-incubating and new Incubator distribution policy

2008-02-03 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On Feb 3, 2008 5:10 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 3, 2008 4:55 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 3, 2008 3:53 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip When we get the go ahead it's left from me to upload the artifacts to

Re: Distribution zips and what they contain, was: SCA runtimes

2008-02-03 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
ant elder wrote: [snip] I'm leaning more towards what Mike is suggesting. OK it doesn't look like we're reaching a consensus as at least two people don't seem to like the scheme I proposed. I take it back then, forget about my proposal, but I still think that a single download containing

Re: Graduation next steps

2008-02-03 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Giorgio Zoppi wrote: 2008/2/3, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There's a lot i think the project could do to encourage others to participate, here's a few things I can think of - We have a lot of downloads and real users, we need to try to get more of these people engaged and

Re: Distribution zips and what they contain, was: SCA runtimes

2008-02-03 Thread Mike Edwards
Jean-Sebastien, Let's chat some more about objectives, to see why we're seeming to look at this differently: Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Mike Edwards wrote: [snip] Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide: - smaller packages - easier for people

Re: Distribution zips and what they contain, was: SCA runtimes

2008-02-03 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Mike Edwards wrote: Jean-Sebastien, Let's chat some more about objectives, to see why we're seeming to look at this differently: [snip] Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: I was thinking about the following binary distro zips: - tuscany-core.zip - The base that everybody needs. core assembly

Re: WSDLLess Deployment Implementation Question

2008-02-03 Thread Mike Edwards
Folks, ant elder wrote: On Jan 31, 2008 5:04 PM, Lou Amodeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question about the implementation of the wsdlless deployment function. The issues I see are occurring in a couple of places within the life-cycle. Namely, deployment, binding start, and service

Re: WSDLLess Deployment Implementation Question

2008-02-03 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Mike Edwards wrote: Folks, ant elder wrote: On Jan 31, 2008 5:04 PM, Lou Amodeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question about the implementation of the wsdlless deployment function. The issues I see are occurring in a couple of places within the life-cycle. Namely, deployment, binding

Re: [PROPOSAL] Automate itests for WAR packaging

2008-02-03 Thread Jean-Sebastien Delfino
Raymond Feng wrote: Hi, I have checked in my changes. Your changes break the build for me as they require Maven 2.0.6. Our 1.1 release worked with Maven 2.0.5. I'm installing the latest Maven (2.0.8) now but what do people prefer? - continue to work with 2.0.5 and later - 2.0.6 and later?

Re: [PROPOSAL] Automate itests for WAR packaging

2008-02-03 Thread Luciano Resende
My personal opinion - 2.0.7 and later? On Feb 3, 2008 2:29 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raymond Feng wrote: Hi, I have checked in my changes. Your changes break the build for me as they require Maven 2.0.6. Our 1.1 release worked with Maven 2.0.5. I'm

Re: [PROPOSAL] Automate itests for WAR packaging

2008-02-03 Thread Luciano Resende
By going with this approach, we can reutilize a lot of existing tests (our iTests for example), instead of having to create/migrate new tests using htmlUnit. As for cargo, it does not support all the hosting platforms we are supporting, right ? On Feb 3, 2008 2:42 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fwd: REMINDER: Board Reports

2008-02-03 Thread Luciano Resende
It is that time again, let's start collaborating in Tuscany draft report in our wiki [1] [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+Board+Report -- Forwarded message -- From: Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Feb 3, 2008 4:47 PM Subject: REMINDER:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Automate itests for WAR packaging

2008-02-03 Thread Raymond Feng
Hi, What problem did you with maven 2.0.5? I'm running maven 2.0.8 now. Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Automate itests for WAR packaging

Re: [PROPOSAL] Automate itests for WAR packaging

2008-02-03 Thread Raymond Feng
Hi, There are two objectives here: 1) Reuse our itests in the webapp packaging scheme with little efforts to convert. Automate the itests in web containers and report the results at the client side. 2) Automate the start/deploy/undeploy/stop of the web applications against various web