Pete,
Cattle-prod of high voltage required for the spec team then.
;-)
Yours, Mike.
Pete Robbins wrote:
I agree Mike but the SDO spec does not currently define a set of headers
that are compilable so adding in things like constructors/destructors is
necessary. When we have a set of heade
I agree Mike but the SDO spec does not currently define a set of headers
that are compilable so adding in things like constructors/destructors is
necessary. When we have a set of headers from the spec group we should use
those to replace the current Tuscany headers. Until then we should aim to
get
Folks,
My 10 cents is that it is not right to add methods to the spec API classes.
My view would be that compliance would require spec-defined classes to
provide the spec, the whole spec and nothing but the spec. This is
certainly the approach to compliance taken for most Java APIs. It's OK
to
the committee.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:02 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: C++ SDO spec compliance/portability: SDORuntimeException
Michael,
An interesting set of questions! I'm not conv
Michael,
An interesting set of questions! I'm not convinced that adding methods to
the spec api classes is a compliance issue (in fact it may be impossible to
implement without modifying the spec apis ... constructors etc.) but it
could be a portability issue if it is not clear that the methods a
Hi,
The Tuscany SDO C++ class SDORuntimeException has these public member
functions which do not appear
in the C++ 2.1 specification:
SDO_API severity_level getSeverity() const;
SDO_API void setSeverity(severity_level sev);
SDO_API void setMessageText(const std::string& msg_text);
SDO_AP
