This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.html
says samples depend on the following libraries
EMF dependencies.
- emf-common-{version}.jar - some common framework utility and base
classes
- emf-ecore-{version}.jar - the EMF core runtime implementation
classes (the Ecore metamodel)
- emf-ecore-change-{version}.jar - the EMF change recorder and
framework
- emf-ecore-xmi-{version}.jar - EMF's default XML (and XMI) serializer
and loader
However what I find in the lib is
common-{version}.jar
ecore-change-{version}.jar
ecore-xmi-{version}.jar
Has the names changed or overview.html is wrong?
On 4/12/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Kelvin,
I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked size
15,444,127 bytes
- ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used the 2.0.1interfaces.
Shouldn't this be M3 now uses...
- C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\readme.html
This includes a link to M2 samples under this statement "
Sample source code is available to
download<http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/sdo-java-download.html>as a separate
distribution to accompany this binary distribution. Download
and unpack a suitable archive and follow the instructions in the archive to
build and run the samples.'
- This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.htmlsays
:To run these samples against the current Tuscany codebase, follow the
instructions at Tuscany SDO Java
Overview<http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/sdo-java.html>,
which describes how to build Tuscany SDO for Java in an Eclipse SDK
environment.
However at this page I see no instructions. Should this be the
getInvolved link under development?
I ran into problems running the samples. I'll give it another try again
tomorrow.
Haleh
On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ant,
> here's a bit more context, since you asked about whether there had
> been
> discussion of this topic ...
>
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
>
> Cheers, Kelvin.
>
> On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > More comments inline...
> >
> > On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > - The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they
> are
> > > there in sdo-api directory)
> > >
> > > this is the anomaly that I pointed out in the last release cycle in
> > > response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a
> single
> > > root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root
> folder
> > > would overwrite one another, hence their appearance in the next
> level
> > > down. We can not satisfy both requirements! Hence for each archive
> I was
> > > considering <common-root>/<specific-distro-root> to be the "root"
> folder
> >
> >
> > Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?
> >
> >
> > - The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and
> include a
> > > non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> > > This was as it was in M2 and M1. I followed the established
> pattern. I
> > > beleive this to be correct.
> >
> >
> > That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
> > which is why I asked if there had been any discussion about it. I
> don't
> > remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api
> files
> > have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
> > different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in
> the
> > sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at
> least a
> > clear explanation found why its ok like this.
> >
> >
> > - There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to
> be
> > > installed to the Apache maven repository?
> > > The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder
> >
> >
> > I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts
> that
> > will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
> > maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and
> signatures.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
> tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
> (impl/samples/src) unzip to
> > > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> > > the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
>
> > > the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced
> requirement
> > > to unpack in to a common root directory. I guess I could add a bin
> > > directory to the binary distribution, but I think for the most part
> people
> > > will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the
> samples) or
> > > the source distros. It would be odd to bury the binary distro
> deeper I
> > > think, but your suggestions are very welcome.
> >
> >
> > As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I
> think
> > some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually
> prefer
> > using separate folders.
> >
> > - I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is
> > > included in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included
> in the
> > > samples, src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i
> > >
> > > there's no javadoc in the src distros, the javadoc in the samples
> > > distros is for the samples, the javadoc in the bin distro is for
> the API to
> > > assist in programming. This was how the discussion on archive
> organisation
> > > resolved in M2.
> >
> >
> > Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the
> same
> > folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples
> distros, the
> > samples are included in the samples and impl distros, and there are
> two src
> > distro's. Which isn't exactly straight forward. I guess none of this
> is a
> > blocker for this release, but in SCA we've now moved the sca-api
> module
> > under the sca folder, maybe the same should happen for SDO and then
> the next
> > release could be:
> > - a single src distribution that includes src for everything
> > - a binary distro that includes the binary jar's, the dependency
> jars,
> > the javadoc, and the samples
> > - the sdo api and impl jars deployed to the maven repo
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
