On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I forgot to mention another one in my previous post: - get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite.
We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use cppunit?)
I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion. Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and they're horrendous. :)
Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from source on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it can build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on automake as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects. In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it ;-) ... and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an ant based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that. Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build would look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ??
-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap] We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA Native release. On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a bit and > haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for TuscanySCA > CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was curious if they > had been contemplated yet. > > - Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0 Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ C&I spec version > - Move to ant instead of make I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you elaborate? Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm all for simplifying the build though! > - Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight changes to > data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage) ok > - Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded... sounds good. > > -------------------- > Brady Johnson > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cheers, -- Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
