Haleh,
thanks for this, It would appear that the documentation was wrong in M2
too. I'll fix this.
Regards, Kelvin.
On 13/04/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
> > >
> >
>
>
